Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For the Borough of Chelsea, in the room of the Right Honourable Sir Samuel John Gurney Hoare, Baronet, G.C.S.I., G.B.E., C.M.G., now Viscount Templewood, called up to the House of Peers.—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE

Civil Administration

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British Government has yet decided to recognise the Provisional Government of France.

The Secretary of State for Foreiǵn Affairs (Mr. Eden): I am unable at present to add anything to what was said on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself in the course of our statements on 28th and 29th September.

Mr. Bartlett: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind how very greatly it would encourage the French if that recognition could be accorded quickly? Could he say that the British Government are not opposed to recognition in any way?

Mr. Eden: My right hon. Friend dealt with this subject rather fully in the recent Debate and I should be reluctant to compress his statement in any way. He said in the course of it:
We are now engaged in discussing these matters both with the French and with other Allied governments, and I am hopeful that, in the near future, a happy settlement will

be reached to the satisfaction of all concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th September, 1944; Vol. 403, c. 496.]

Mr. Shinwell: As we have already recognised General de Gaulle, is it not a little invidious that we should not recognise the Provisional Government of which he is the head?

Mr. Cocks: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a definite request from the Foreign Minister of the French Provisional Government for such recognition?

Mr. Eden: I should like notice of that Question.

Spanish Republicans

Mr. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the part played in the liberation of France by Spanish Republican refugees in that country operating alongside the F.F.I.; whether all Spanish republicans lately interned in French camps and prisons have now been released; and whether assurances can now be given to these Spaniards of continuity of asylum on democratic territory and a guarantee against enforced repatriation to Spain.

Mr. Eden: I understand that a certain number of Spanish Republican refugees in France joined the French Forces of the Interior but I have no detailed information regarding either the exact numbers or the part which they played in fighting against the Germans.
As regards the second part of the question, I caused inquiries to be made of the French authorities. The present position is that the latter are conducting a rapid examination of the files of all Spanish internees in France, the great majority of whom have already been released. As regards the last part of the Question, this is of course a matter for the French authorities, who will, I am sure, deal with it in accordance with the principles of justice and humanity.

British Embassy, Paris (Commercial Representative)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he will give the name of our Commercial Counsellor or Representative at the British Embassy in Paris.

Mr. Eden: The head of the Commercial Department of His Majesty's Embassy at Paris is Mr. A. R. Fraser who has the rank of Minister (Commercial).

FOREIGN SERVICE

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can yet state the new conditions of service for the Foreign Service.

Mr. Eden: The amalgamation of the diplomatic, commercial diplomatic and consular services has now been put into administrative effect and vacancies are filled, as they arise, from the ranks of the amalgamated Service irrespective of an officer's previous career in any of the former separate branches of the Foreign Service. Thus a number of the members of the former consular service have during the past twelve months been appointed to posts both at home and abroad previously reserved for members of the diplomatic service. Plans for the recruitment of the Foreign Service in accordance with Command Paper 6420 are now in an advanced state and will be put into effect as soon as possible on, the termination of hostilities in Europe. Regular arrangements are now in force under which Foreign Service officers at posts abroad come home at intervals at the public expense for refresher courses and for the renewal of contacts official and otherwise in this country.
As recently announced in the Press a Deputy Under-Secretary for Administration and an Inspector of Diplomatic Establishments Abroad have now been appointed. The special Board to advise the Foreign Secretary in cases of retirement on pension before the age of sixty has been set up and a number of cases have already been referred to it. Various financial and administrative questions arising out of the amalgamation of the services and of other measures referred to in Command Paper 6420 are under active consideration between myself and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Miss Ward: But could my right hon. Friend say how long these conversations on the financial aspect of the new Foreign Service have been going on between himself and the Treasury?

Mr. Eden: I think my hon. Friend will see from my answer that a very great number of matters have already been settled. There are others which are still being discussed, but I think we are making quite good progress.

Miss Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the importance of giving further opportunities to women for service in the diplomatic and consular services?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Lady will be aware that that is a question which is being otherwise dealt with.

GERMANY (NAZI CRIMES)

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will ask the Governments of the United Nations to make a declaration that as soon as practicable every effort will be made to obtain the names of those responsible for crimes against German democrats and anti-Nazis, such as the recent murder of 7,000 internees in Buchenwald concentration camp; and that those names will be added to the list of war criminals and tried by an appropriate court.

Mr. Eden: Crimes committed by Germans against Germans, however reprehensible, are in a different category from war crimes and cannot be dealt with under the same procedure. His Majesty's Government have this matter under consideration, but I am not in a position to make any further statement at present.

Mr. Strauss: Does not the Foreign Secretary agree that the murder in cold blood of anti-Nazi Germans in Germany, is just as criminal as the murder of anti-Nazis of other nationalities elsewhere? At the present stage of the war, would it not be salutary to issue a warning that such crimes will be punished with equal ruthlessness?

Mr. Eden: I was not trying to measure the degree of the reprehensible in any of these deeds; all I was saying was that it was not a war crime in the sense of other crimes that are being committed, and other means would have to be found for dealing with it.

Mr. Price: Would the Secretary of State bear in mind that any action he may take in this respect will have a big effect on


the possibility of getting a decent Government in Germany after the war?

Miss Rathbone: Might it not have an effect on the danger of further crimes, such as Buchenwald, if it is made perfectly clear now, that under whatever procedure, criminals will not escape punishment?

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Can anything be a crime if it is not a breach of some existing law?

Mr. Silverman: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that all these matters are equally offensive against the human conscience, and on exactly the same grounds? Would it not, therefore, be very much better to widen the terms of reference of the War Crimes Commission so that all these matters could be dealt with by exactly the same procedure?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. We really have given some thought to this. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend about widening the work of the War Crimes Commission; they have a very definite and circumscribed task. I agree, however, about the offensiveness of these crimes; all I say is, that they must be handled in some other way.

Mr. G. Strauss: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — ETHIOPIA

Air Services

Mr. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now, disclose the terms of all agreements made by the British, American and Ethiopian Governments in relation to air services in Ethiopia.

Mr. Eden: There is no agreement between His Majesty's Government and the Ethiopian Government in relation to air services in Ethiopia other than Article 11 of the Agreement and Military Convention of January 31st, 1942 (Command Paper 6334 of February 3rd, 1942).
Negotiations for the revision of this agreement are pending. I have no knowledge of any agreement between the American and Ethiopian Governments on this subject.

Aǵreement (Neǵotiations)

Mr. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view, of the fact that the Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement, 1942, has terminated, the Ethiopian railway which, for the period of the agreement only, was placed under British military control has now been restored to Ethiopian control; and whether British troops have vacated the reserved areas which they occupied under the 1942 Agreement.

Mr. Eden: In view of the negotiations for a fresh agreement now pending, the Ethiopian Government have agreed to maintain the status quo in both respects for a further period.

ITALY (COLONIES)

Mr. Barstow: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the Ministry of Information pamphlet "The First to be Freed," recording that slavery was practised by the Italian Government in their Colony of Somalia, and the neglect of sanitation, public health, water supply, and education in Eritrea and Somalia, the imprisonment for years without trial and under bad conditions of persons guilty of no crime known to the laws of civilised countries, he will assure the House that His Majesty's Government is opposed to the return of the colonies to Italy, and that their declaration that the Italian Empire in Africa is irrevocably lost will be strictly adhered to.

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir.

BULGARIA (TREATMENT OF WAR PRISONERS)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton Pownall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the statements by British and allied prisoners of war recently liberated in Bulgaria, that they have been treated with exceptional severity; and, whether he will see that those Bulgarians found responsible shall be included in the lists of war criminals.

Mr. Eden: I have seen reports in the Press about the statements to which my hon. Friend refers. All such statements will certainly be fully investigated so that appropriate action may be taken.

SPAIN (NAZI WAR CRIMINALS)

Mr. Alexander Walkden: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received an assurance from the Spanish Government that it will forbid asylum to any Fascist or Nazi war criminals whom the Allies desire to bring to judgment.

Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid has received assurances that it is not the intention of the Spanish Government to provide asyum for war criminals in Spain. Similar assurances have also, I understand, been given to the American Ambassador.

Mr. Walkden: Can the Foreign Secretary say whether he has had similar assurances in this respect from Portugal?

Mr. Eden: Perhaps my hon. Friend would be good enough to put that Question down; I am not sure exactly what is the present position.

Captain Cunninǵham-Reid: What is the use of any such assurances, if these war criminals arrive in Spain under assumed names?

Mr. Eden: I should think human ingenuity might almost deal with that.

Mr. Gallacher: Would the Minister not give an assurance to the Spanish people that we will not tolerate Fascism in Spain?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Aerodromes

Mr. R. Morǵan: asked the Secretary of State for Air if it is his intention to develop aerodromes in the Home Counties of which details in one case have been sent to him involving that much of a village will be swept away; and whether the present church is also doomed.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): I appreciate my hon. Friend's anxiety in regard to this airfield, but I am glad to be able to assure him that no development of it is intended.

Permanent Commissions (Resignations)

Colonel Greenwell: asked the Secretary of State for Air if the Government's proposals for demobilisation will permit of officers who are serving on permanent regular commissions in the R.A.F. re-

signing their commissions at the appropriate time should they so desire and being demobilised in accordance with the scheme; and what will, similarly, be the position of other ranks on long service attestations.

Sir A. Sinclair: The Government scheme of release or transfer from the Forces does not apply to officers holding permanent commissions or to airmen of the regular Air Force whose periods of engagement have not expired.

Colonel Greenwell: Can the Minister say what will be the position with regard to the resignations of officers in future? Does he appreciate that there will undoubtedly be officers who, not seeing much prospect for themselves in the Service, would probably like to take jobs in civil life?

Sir A. Sinclair: The position will be exactly the same as it is at present. Applications to resign commissions will be considered on their merits.

Mr. Stephen: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman's policy is to put officers in a privileged position with regard to getting out of the Air Force, as compared with other ranks?

Sir A. Sinclair: Most decidedly not.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Government Policy

Mr. Bowles: asked the Secretary of State for Air what are the Government's plans and programmes for an orderly world system of civil aviation.

Sir A. Sinclair: As the House is aware, the Government are seeking international collaboration in the development of an orderly world system of civil air transport. The principles which the Government favour were stated by the Lord Privy Seal in another place on 10th May last. These are the elimination of uneconomic competition, the maintenance of a balance between transport capacity and traffic offering on the international routes and the control and allocation of frequencies by and between the countries concerned.

Mr. Bowles: Has the Minister's attention been called to a speech made by his right hon. and gallant Friend the Under-


Secretary about two and a half weeks ago, in which he was trying to assure people interested in civil aviation that plans really did exist, and indicated that he, at least, could not accept as satisfactory to the ordinary civilian aviation people the kind of statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman?

Sir A. Sinclair: I am sure that the plans referred to by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary are those I have just mentioned.

Mr. Shinwell: Has the Minister seen the speeches which have been made by air experts in America indicating that nothing will prevent America from entering bilateral agreements with other countries in relation to air routes?

Sir A. Sinclair: A great many speeches have been made on both sides of the Atlantic, and that is why I am glad to know that representatives of the Governments concerned will shortly meet round a table to discuss this problem.

British Empire Air Routes (Conference)

Sir W. Brass: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Air whether any arrangements have been made for further Inter-Commonwealth discussions about civil air transport, following the talks which were held in October of last year.

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir. At the invitation of the Canadian Government, officials of British Commonwealth Governments will meet for a Conference in Montreal beginning on the 23rd instant to discuss operational and technical problems connected with the establishment of air routes between members of the British Commonwealth. Air transport services operated for war purposes will be reviewed and it is expected that there will be discussion of possible operations during the remainder of the war as well as in the post-war period. Any recommendations made by the conference will be submitted to the Governments for approval. It has for some time been the intention of the Commonwealth Governments to hold further conversations on aviation problems. Now that a general international conference on the subject is to be held in the United States in November it has been agreed that the further Com-

monwealth talks could most conveniently take place in Canada at a meeting attended by the officials of the delegations visiting North America for the Conference in the United States. The South African Government has agreed to postpone the conference which was to have been held in Johannesburg this month to discuss civil aviation problems affecting Southern Africa.

Mr. A. Bevan: Can we have the date of this Conference in Canada?

Sir A. Sinclair: 23rd October.

Mr. Bevan: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, why it was necessary to have this Private Notice Question?

Mr. Speaker: The answer is obviously that a simultaneous announcement is being made in the Canadian House of Commons, and I think this House of Commons would have objected if the Canadian House had heard it and we had not.

Mr. Bowles: What policy, so far as civil aviation is concerned, will His Majesty's Government stand for in the Canadian parleys on 23rd October and what policy will they press for in the international talks in November?

Sir A. Sinclair: As regards the outline of the policy, I answered a question on that, which the hon. Member put to me earlier in the Sitting. The Commonwealth Conference is to be a discussion of practical operational and technical problems, for the organisation of routes between the Empire countries represented at the Conference.

Sir Oliver Simmonds: Which Ministers will represent the United Kingdom Government; and will they represent a general policy acceptable to the House?

Sir A. Sinclair: ; This is a Conference of officials, and not of Ministers.

Viscount Hinchinǵbrooke: Is it not very desirable that the Conference in Canada should take place before the Conference in the United States?

Sir A. Sinclair: It will. The Conference in Canada, as I have said, is to take place on the 23rd of this month.

FETE (AIRCRAFT, EXHIBITION)

Mr. John Duǵdale: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production why his Ministry acceded to the request for a number of aeroplanes to be sent to Lady Dudley's fête recently, when similar requests for the loan of aircraft for exhibition were refused.

The Minister of Aircraft Production (Sir Stafford Cripps): No request was received by my Ministry from Lady Dudley's fête, and no aircraft were sent there.

Mr. Duǵdale: If they were not sent by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Ministry, will he inquire from the Ministry of Supply whether they were sent from there?

Sir S. Cripps: I think the hon. Gentleman had better make inquiries from Lady Dudley.

Mr. Duǵdale: They were certainly sent there.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Distinǵuished Service Medal (Monetary Awards)

Mr. John Duǵdale: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to make a statement about the question of monetary awards to holders of the D.S.M.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): No, Sir, but I hope that it will be possible for a statement to be made within the next few weeks.

Anti-U-boat Campaiǵn

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of recent war developments, he will authorise some increase of publicity with regard to the progress of our campaign against German U-boats.

Mr. Alexander: In spite of the safe passage of the invasion convoys and of many millions of tons of shipping across the oceans, it must not be overlooked that the enemy can still deploy against us an effective force of U-boats of improved design, armed with new weapons. We may yet have to face dangerous losses. It is our duty to deny the enemy any information which would assist him.

We must not forget the Japanese war and its many problems. Of course, we should like to tell the country the deathless tale of how our sailors and airmen beat the U-boat, but we must not throw needless burdens on the future.

Ratinǵ (Desertion Sentence)

Mr. Arthur Duckworth: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether No. D/JX287308, Able Seaman L. C. Hale, was under the ship's doctor at the time when he left his ship in May, 1944; and why Able Seaman Hale was sentenced to 42 days' detention for the offence of desertion after being treated as a mental case for several weeks both in the Royal Salop Infirmary and elsewhere and in view of the opinions of the doctors who first examined him when he arrived at Shrewsbury and the length of time which finally elapsed before disciplinary action was taken against him.

Mr. Alexander: From the entries in this rating's medical history it appears that he was not under the ship's doctor when he deserted from his ship. Both the naval hospital where he was subsequently treated and the psychiatrist who re-examined him after he arrived at the barracks reported on his mental condition and considered that he was responsible for his actions at the time of his desertion, and the psychiatrist recommended that there should be no interference with the usual disciplinary action. In these circumstances the rating was sentenced to 42 days' detention for the serious offence of deserting from his ship. The fact that this man was required to undergo medical treatment for some weeks after his desertion did not, of course, make it possible to ignore his offence.

Mr. Duckworth: Is not a matter of principle involved here? If this man was not a medical case, why was he not arrested and taken straight back to his ship? What justice can there be in taking disciplinary action against him weeks after he had arrived home, and had been given medical treatment for a number of weeks?

Mr. Alexander: I do not think a question of principle arises, because the officer responsible for exercising disciplinary action took no action against the man for the offence until he had taken advice from the naval hospital, and the


psychiatrist who specially examined him, as to whether he was or was not responsible for his desertion.

Mr. McGovern: Is great care taken in such cases as this to see that men are not suffering from strain or mental trouble before or even after court-martial?

Mr. Alexander: I say frankly that I am glad this case has been brought to my notice because I want to advise the people concerned to be careful about these cases and consider them as sympathetically as possible.

Mr. Silverman: Is it not obvious that if a man deserted, and it was found necessary to treat him immediately afterwards for a considerable period in a mental hospital, he should not have been detained for 42 days?

Mr. Alexander: I have given the House the facts as they are.

Mr. Duckworth: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Lectures (Members of Parliament)

Mr. Huǵh Lawson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty on how many occasions Members of Parliament have addressed naval units during the recess; how many Members from each party gave these addresses; and if any of these addresses were given at places outside Great Britain.

Mr. Alexander: As part of the education of naval personnel in current affairs, visits by three Members of Parliament to naval units in the Orkneys and Shetlands were arranged during the Recess. The hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey (Captain Gammans) gave 13 lectures, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) gave 11, and the hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) 16. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) gave one lecture at H.M.S. "Collingwood." The answer to the second part of the Question is, therefore, two Conservatives, one Independent National and one Independent. So far as I am aware, no meetings were arranged outside Great Britain, though I cannot exclude the possibility that less formal

occasions may have been arranged by local Naval authorities.

Mr. Lawson: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him whether it is his intention to extend in the future this very desirable practice of Members of all parties addressing naval personnel?

Mr. Alexander: I confess that I do not want to butt in on this question of educational leaders in the Navy finding people whom they consider would be suitable to address personnel on particular subjects. I would much rather they had freedom and no political guidance from me.

Mr. Shinwell: When did the Minister reach the conclusion that no Labour Member was capable of lecturing to men under his control? Are we to understand that the hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey (Captain Gammans) was entitled to lecture 13 times—I do not know why it should have been 13—while no Member on this side was considered fit and proper to undertake that task?

Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend on this occasion is rather too previous. Labour Members have lectured to the Navy. During the Easter and Whitsun Recesses lectures were given by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. Thorne: Are any of these lecturers in favour of democracy?

Lifeboat, Bembridǵe (Use)

Captain Peter Macdonald: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to an incident which occurred at Bembridge, Isle of Wight, on the 16th instant when an airman lost his life within 50 yards of the shore; and, as the lifeboat crew were prevented by Admiralty Regulations and the control officer on duty from launching the lifeboat, what action he proposes to take to prevent a recurrence of further incidents of this kind.

Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir, I have received a full report on this unfortunate occurrence, which is very much regretted. The reports first received were that someone was in distress in the direction of Bembridge and secondly that a Wellington aircraft had come down off Bembridge and that one of the crew had landed there. Two high speed rescue craft were


sent out immediately to search in the vicinity, one inshore and one further out. Five minutes later a message was received by the naval authorities from the coastguards to say that they had been informed by the hon. Secretary of the Bembridge Lifeboat Station that a man near the lifeboat house was calling for help. Unfortunately, it was wrongly assumed that this message referred to the man who had just previously been reported as having landed at Bembridge. Thus, when a few minutes later a request was received by telephone for permission to launch the lifeboat, it was believed that this was unnecessary and that it would be better to hold the boat in reserve. It was known that boats were already searching in the vicinity. If it had been appreciated that a man was at that time in the water calling for help and that the lifeboat crew knew where he was, permission for the boat to launch would, of course, have been given immediately. It is necessary that traffic in the approaches to all defended ports should be strictly controlled in order that craft may not run into danger or precipitate action by the local defences. For this reason orders had been given by the C.-in-C. which required the lifeboat in its own interests to obtain permission to launch. Orders of this nature are being reviewed in consultation with the Inspector, H.M. Coastguards, in the light of the changing war situation and the changing balance of risk, and I hope that this will prevent a recurrence of this regrettable incident. I wish to take this opportunity of expressing my deep sympathy to the bereaved relatives.

Captain Macdonald: Is it not a fact that those who asked permission for the launching of the lifeboat were informed that the man in distress was in view of the lifeboat crew at the time, and they could hear and see him, and yet they were not given permission; in fact they were told they could not launch it?

Mr. Alexander: The incident was unfortunate and there was an error of judgment in interpreting the Regulations. That has been dealt with.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is it not a fact that it was not a question of an error of judgment, but a question of red tape?

Mr. Alexander: Not at all. You must remember that you are dealing also with the lives of a large number of lifeboat-

men and you have to consider not only mines laid by the enemy, but the immediate operation of our local defences which would begin to work automatically unless proper steps were taken by the naval authorities.

Sir Irvinǵ Albery: Would not the difficulty be better met if the launching of the lifeboat were immediately notified to the naval authorities? They would still have time to prevent it, if necessary.

Mr. Alexander: In some cases, where defence permits of it, that is done already, and in this case I think it is going to be done in the future.

Permanent Commissions (Resiǵnation)

Colonel Greenwell: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the Government's proposals for demobilisation will permit of officers who are serving on permanent Regular commissions in the Royal Navy resigning their commissions at the appropriate time, should they so desire, and being demobilised in accordance with the scheme; and what will, similarly, be the position of other ranks on long-service attestations.

Mr. Alexander: The release scheme promulgated in the recent White Paper does not apply to permanent service officers or men whose normal periods of service have not expired.

Colonel Greenwell: Will sympathetic consideration be given to the claims of officers and men in these categories who, on the termination of hostilities, would like to take up vacancies that may occur or be offered them in civil life?

Mr. Alexander: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that applications received in that way will be dealt with, as now, on their merits.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

Political and Technical Officers (Recruitment)

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken by him to recruit suitable men and women for the political and technical services in British dependencies, in the light of present and post-war needs; whether terms of employment are under


revision; and what methods will be employed in the selection of candidates.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): I would refer my hon. Friend to the official announcement on post-war recruitment to the Colonial Service which appeared in the Press on 16th September. The arrangements for reopening recruitment after the defeat of Germany are well advanced, and detailed information about them and about the method of application and selection will be published shortly in pamphlets which will be widely circulated both in this country and among the Armed Forces serving overseas.

Rubber Industry (International Meetinǵs)

Mr. Emery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking in the international meetings to consider the future of rubber to protect the interests of the native producer and the organisations necessary to prepare, ship and distribute the product; and will he ensure that shareholders' associations and agency firms obtain no advantage over the real producers, including a high proportion of Chinese producers, so that the purchasing power for export goods from this country to rubber producing countries may not be seriously affected by adopting a policy which fails to protect the native producer.

Colonel Stanley: My hon. Friend can rest assured that at the meetings of the Rubber Study Group all these considerations will be borne in mind by the official members of the United Kingdom delegation.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS

Public Assembly (Prosecutions)

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the prosecutions recently of the Mayor of Limassol and the secretary of the Cyprus trade unions for public assembly without permission; and whether he will consider the removal of such restrictions.

Colonel Stanley: I am aware of these prosecutions. The persons concerned took part in a demonstration which followed a meeting addressed by the Mayor of Limassol on 17th August. The Mayor of

Limassol had given an undertaking that there would be no procession after the meeting, but a procession was held without the official permit which is required by law. I understand that in these two cases the defendants were bound over to keep the peace for two years. As regards the last part of the Question I do not consider it advisable, nor in the interest of good order in Cyprus, that the Government should relinquish powers of control over public meetings and processions.

Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the very intense nationalist feeling in the island, and the considerable irritation against restrictions of this kind, cannot something be done now to relax things?

Colonel Stanley: I do not think it would be at all advisable. It is the very intensity of feeling that makes certain precautions unavoidable, also the fact that Cyprus is still within the zone of possible operations.

Mr. McGovern: Are we to take it that the Colonial Secretary does not encourage any underground movement in this part of the Empire?

Sir Cosmo Parkinson's Visit

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on Sir Cosmo Parkinson's mission to Cyprus and on the arrest of political and trade union leaders for taking part in a demonstration on 17th August.

Colonel Stanley: Sir Cosmo Parkinson visited Cyprus as my personal representative to acquaint himself at first hand with local conditions and problems. His visit was of the same nature as those which, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, he has paid to other Colonies on behalf of my predecessor and myself during the past two years. As regards the demonstration of 17th August, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the Question on the same subject by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones).

Mr. John Dugdale: Is it not strange that there should be any discontent in Cyprus in view of the fact that the Prime Minister, during his visit, said they were having a period of unrivalled prosperity and everyone was exceedingly happy?

Colonel Stanley: Human nature is very strange.

Mr. Riley: Will any report be issued of Sir Cosmo Parkinson's visit to this Colony?

Colonel Stanley: No. That will not be done this time. It has not been done in the past. He went as my personal representative and his report will be confidential.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA

Mining; Industry

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken in Nigeria to overhaul the conditions of labour in the tinmines of the plateau; whether new conditions are being imposed on the concession holders in respect to restoration of land, removal of debris, adoption of up-to-date methods of extraction and welfare, relief of density of population, restoration of fertility of soil for the tribes; whether any new regulations governing existing and new concessions will be imposed; and whether the portion of the royalties distributed to private shareholders in Europe will be retained for the benefit of African development.

Colonel Stanley: Future policy with regard to the mining industry in Nigeria is now under review, but I am not at present in a position to make a statement on the subject.

Mr. Creech Jones: When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman comes to consider the whole problem, will he take into consideration some of the points mentioned in my letter, because of the rather disgraceful conditions that exist there?

Colonel Stanley: I would not use the word "disgraceful" but both the hon. Member and I have recently visited the area, and I agree that there is a good deal to be done.

Railways Pension Scheme

Mr. Thomas Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of a petition, presented in May of this year, in favour of widening the pension scheme of the Nigerian railways to include artisans and other workers; and how far the petition was granted.

Colonel Stanley: The matter is under consideration, but I am not in a position to make a statement at present. I will

communicate with the hon. Members on the subject as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Fraudulent Drugs (Control)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any further action has been taken in consultation with the Governor of Nigeria respecting the control and advertisement of questionable or fraudulent drugs.

Colonel Stanley: The Government of Nigeria is considering whether legislation should be introduced for the control of undesirable advertisements of the type in question. Meanwhile the Government is carrying out propaganda to educate the public in regard to the dangers of fraudulent drugs.

Mr. Sorensen: Is not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that a Government publication has drawn attention to this kind of things; and does he not consider that something more might have been done to prevent the swindling of the labour population?

Colonel Stanley: There were already some regulations in existence.

Mr. Sorensen: But not nearly sufficient to cover very grave abuses.

Colonel Stanley: The hon. Member knows that, even in this country, it is not easy to control this kind of thing purely by regulations. Propaganda is probably the best way.

Mr. Turton: Will juju charms and medicines be included in the drugs on, which action is proposed to be taken?

Colonel Stanley: Yes, Six, if they come under the description of either "questionable" or "fraudulent."

Ophthalmic Specialists

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there are any fully-qualified ophthalmic specialists in the service of the Government of Nigeria; and whether the service of such specialists is available to inhabitants of the Colony.

Colonel Stanley: A Government medical officer fully qualified in ophthalmology has been attached to the Nigerian Government and his services have been available to the public at the Government Ophthal-


mic Clinic. I understand that he will shortly be leaving Nigeria and I am inquiring of the Governor as to the arrangements which he proposes then to make.
Mr. Sorensen: Has he any assistants adequate to the task?

Colonel Stanley: He has assistants, I think, but there is in Nigeria, I understand, only one other fully qualified practitioner.

Mr. Riley: Does not the right and gallant Gentleman consider it advisable that there should be a greater supply of ophthalmic assistants in Nigeria with its 20,000,000 people?

Colonel Stanley: The hon. Gentleman must realise that there is an extreme scarcity of medical practitioners all over the world to-day, and I am governed, not by what I desire to have, but by what I can get.

BRITISH GUIANA AND TRINIDAD (FRANCHISE)

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make on franchise matters in British Guiana and Trinidad.

Colonel Stanley: With regard to Trinidad I made a full statement in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Hornsey on the 2nd August. With regard to British Guiana, the report of the Franchise Commission has been placed in the Library of the House, and I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT, a statement showing the action which, with my approval, it is proposed to take on the main recommendations.

Following is the statement:

The report of the Franchise Commission of the Colony of British Guiana has been laid in the Library of the House to-day. The Legislative and Executive Councils in British Guiana have been consulted and I have had the advantage of discussing the report personally with Sir Gordon Lethem in this country.

The following are the main recommendations of the Commission with the action which it is now proposed, with my approval, to take upon them. That action will involve an amending Order-in-Council the draft of which will be laid

on the table of the House in due course and local legislation which will be prepared and submitted to the present Legislative Council of British Guiana.

Qualifications for membership of Legislative Council

Paragraph 59.—The Commission with one exception recommend that Membership of the Legislative Council should be open to women on the same terms as men. I have accepted this recommendation.

Paragraph 63.—The Commission with one exception recommend that the financial qualifications for membership should be reduced from

(a) possession of income of $2,400 a year, to the possession of income of $1,200 a year or over,
(b) possession of property to the value of $5,000 to the possession of property of $1,000 or over,
(c) the holding of a lease to the annual value of $1,200 to the holding of one of the annual value of $300 or over.

I have accepted these recommendations.

Paragraph 65.—The Commission unanimously recommend the removal of the present disqualification of ministers of religion who possess the other qualifications required. I have accepted this recommendation.

Paragraph 64.—The Commission unanimously recommend that any person before becoming eligible for election to the Legislative Council must at some period of his life have previously resided continuously in the Colony for at least one year before nomination. I have accepted this recommendation.

Qualifications for voters for Legislative Council.

Paragraph 11.—A majority of the Commission recommend that the qualifications for exercise of the franchise should be reduced as follows:

(a) Ownership, occupation or tenancy of land of six acres, to three acres.
(b) Ownership of land to the value of $350, to $150.
(c) Occupation or tenancy of property of rental to the value of $96 a year, to $48 a year.
(d) Possession of income of $300 a year, to $120 a year.

A minority of the Commission recommend universal adult suffrage.

It will be recognised that the majority report of the Commission provides for a substantial extension of the franchise, though one still falling short of universal adult suffrage. The matter has been fully debated in the British Guiana Legislative Council, a substantial majority of whom stated that they approved the majority report of the Commission; that report was also accepted unanimously by the unofficial members of the Executive Council. On the other hand representations have been received from numerous bodies in the Colony such as those from the East Indian Association in favour of universal adult suffrage. At a recent Conference of Chairmen of the Village Councils however, 150 delegates passed a resolution strongly supporting the majority report. The matter is clearly one in which there is a considerable division of opinion in the Colony and where a large majority of the Commission, which was fully representative and responsible, and was appointed in exactly the same manner as the Trinidad Franchise Committee, has reported in favour of an extension of the franchise falling short of universal adult suffrage, and as this report has met with the approval of the majority of the Legislative Council, I feel that I should accept it.

It is true that in Trinidad and Jamaica the principle of universal adult suffrage has been accepted but in Trinidad this was recommended by the majority of a Committee which as I have said was appointed in the same manner as the British Guiana Commission, while in Jamaica universal adult suffrage was unanimously recommended by responsible local bodies including the Legislative Council. Moreover conditions in British Guiana are not in all respects parallel to those in Jamaica and Trinidad and I feel that it would not be reasonable that a Colony with differing conditions should be held bound to follow measures adopted in others.

I desire, however, to make it plain that, as envisaged by the Commission, the aim of policy in British Guiana will be the adoption of universal adult suffrage at a later date, and, as suggested in paragraph 57 of the Commission's report, a

census of the country will be taken, as soon as practicable, as a step towards that end.

Paragraph 19.—The majority of the Commission recommend that every elector should be required to pass a literacy test in English. A minority of the Commission recommended that the existing literacy test should be abolished.

As I have already explained, the British Guiana Legislative Council will not be invited to approve the introduction of adult suffrage. There is, therefore, less reason than there was in the case of Trinidad to invite the Council to accept the abolition of all literacy or language tests. But, just as in Trinidad, I saw objection to the recommendation that ability to understand spoken English should be a qualification for the franchise, so I do not feel able to accept the majority recommendation in British Guiana for a literacy test confined to English. I have therefore approved in British Guiana the retention of the existing test of literacy in any language. I have, however, accepted the recommendation of the Commission for a literacy test in English for membership of the Legislative Council on grounds of practical convenience since otherwise members would be unable to carry out their duties. Moreover, the necessity for such a qualification has been expressly submitted in writing to the Franchise Commission by the British Guiana East Indian Association and the Islamic Association, among other organisations.

Electoral Districts

Paragraphs 81 to 91.—The Commission recommend certain modifications of the existing electoral districts subject to a final decision on the franchise question. I accept these recommendations.

The Commission refer in paragraphs 104 and 105 of their report to certain proposals for other constitutional changes which were put before them. The Commission did not agree among themselves as to these proposals and felt that in any case it was not within their province, and expressed no opinion on them. They therefore contented themselves with merely transmitting them for consideration by the proper authorities. These recommendations will be considered by the Governor as and when it appears desirable.

The Commission was a carefully selected body fully representative of general opinion in the Colony, and its recommendations provide for a marked advance in the association of the people of the Colony with the management of their affairs. I should like to pay a tribute to the thorough and exhaustive manner in which the Commission carried out its inquiries and to the undoubted services which its members, under the valuable guidance of its Chairman, Mr. Woolford, have rendered to the Colony.

PRISONERS OF WAR AND CIVILIAN INTERNEES, FAR EAST

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the names of the members of the representative committee who are dealing with problems arising out of prisoners of war and civilian internees from Malaya and Hong Kong and the type of problems being dealt with.

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the names and qualifications of the members of the representative committee considering problems of the Malaya and Hong Kong prisoners of war and internees.

Colonel Stanley: As the reply is necessarily long and detailed, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Miss Ward: Is it a permanent Committee, with terms of reference and a chairman?

Colonel Stanley: Yes, it has a chairman and members and an agenda.

Following is the statement:

The Chairman of the Conference is the Assistant Under-Secretary of State in the Colonial Office who is concerned with Far Eastern matters. The members comprise representatives of the Foreign Office, War Office and Ministry of Health in addition to the following:

Mr. H. D. Aplin (Sarawak Government Agent); Mr. C. F. C. Macaskie (British North Borneo (Chartered) Company); Mr. H. B. Egmont Hake (Association of British Malaya); Mr. G. E. Cator (Far Eastern Relief Committee); Mr. C. H. B. Joly (China Association); Miss E. D. C. Wolfe (Victorian Diocesan Association, Hong

Kong and South China); Miss S. J. Warner (British Red Cross War Organisation).

Other experts are brought into consultation on particular subjects.

The problems being studied include the welfare and medical care of repatriated ex-prisoners of war and civilian internees; financial assistance in cases of need; reunion of families. I should perhaps make it clear that this Colonial Office Conference is concerned only with (a) members of the local volunteer forces who are prisoners of war and (b) with civilian internees who were resident in Hong Kong, Malaya, North Borneo and Sarawak.

KENYA (NAIROBI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL)

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action is being taken to appoint African representatives to serve on the Nairobi municipal council in accordance with the recent suggestion of the mayor of Nairobi.

Colonel Stanley: The Nairobi municipal Council has approved a proposal to nominate two Africa members to serve on the council, and the Kenya Government now has the proposal under consideration. An amendment of the law relating to municipalities is involved.

BAHAMAS (SECRET BALLOT)

Mr. Thomas Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is now the position regarding the introduction of the secret ballot in the Bahamas; and was a measure with this end in view presented to the House of Assembly with the recommendation that it should be passed in accordance with His Majesty's Government's desire and rejected by them.

Colonel Stanley: A message from the Governor was sent to the Bahamas House of Assembly in June of this year inviting the House to enact legislation to make voting by secret ballot permanent in New Providence Island and to extend it to the Out Islands. In July the House passed a Bill making the secret ballot permanent in New Providence but rejected by 17 votes to 8 the proposal for the extension of the secret ballot to the


whole Colony. The former Bill has since been concurred in by the Legislative Council which has also passed a resolution placing on record its determination to support legislation extending the secret ballot throughout the Colony.
In reply to the last part of the Question, the Governor's message informed the House that the passing of this Measure was expressly desired by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Creech Jones: Is it the intention of the Government to do anything in this matter?

Colonel Stanley: I am in communication with the Governor as to future action.

UGANDA (NON-OFFICIAL REPRE SENTATION)

Mr. Sorensen: asked, the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that although there are 4,000,000 Africans, 27,000 Asiatics and 2,700 Europeans in Uganda, there are only four non-official members of the Council and no non-official members of the Executive Council, he will cause the whole question of non-official representation to be reviewed.

Colonel Stanley: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on this subject on 7th June.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that it is about time that the 4,000,000 Africans had more non-official representation?

Colonel Stanley: I am very anxious that the hon. Member and the House should understand that Uganda is in a different position from some other Colonies in that a great part of the work there is done by purely African assemblies. I am not at all averse to a proposal of this kind if I were sure that it would not damage the existing system of African government.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I take it that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is giving sympathetic consideration to the possibility of more non-official representation?

Colonel Stanley: A new Governor has been appointed and I will discuss this with him before he goes out.

MAURITIUS (DISTURBANCES)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made respecting publication of the report on the Mauritius disturbances.

Colonel Stanley: Printed copies of the report are now on their way to Mauritius and it will be published both here and in the Colony as soon as possible after they arrive.

SIERRA LEONE (PATERSON REPORT)

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the recent Report by Mr. Alexander Paterson on Juvenile Delinquency and Penal Administration and Welfare Services in Sierra Leone; and whether he proposes to take any action arising out of the Report.

Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir. I have read the report with interest and am at present in correspondence with the Governor about it. I hope that action in a number of directions will result from Mr. Paterson's recommendations.

SEYCHELLES (DEFENCE REGULATIONS)

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now obtained any information on the alleged colour-bar discrimination in operation under the Defence Regulations in the town of Mahé in the Seychelles Islands, to which his attention was called by the hon. Member for Dewsbury.

Colonel Stanley: The Regulation to which the hon. Member refers put hotels, bars and restaurants out of bounds to non-commissioned Seychelles Pioneers and to African Troops. It also put bacca shops out of bounds to Africans. Its purpose was to stop Seychellois and African Troops from drinking rum and other drinks that are strange to them. Unit canteens have been established both for the Pioneers and for African Troops. The Regulation was made with the full concurrence of the local Service and civilian authorities and I am informed that it has proved very successful.

OVERSEAS FORCES (HOME LEAVE)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Prime Minister if he can give an assurance that men who are serving overseas when the war in Europe ends will be given a period of home leave before they are posted to the Far East.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): We We shall do the very best we can.

DECEASED SERVICE PERSONNEL (RELATIVES' VISITS TO GRAVES)

Mr. Coleg;ate: asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to issue, when conditions permit, free travel passes or to afford other assistance to the next of kin of sailors, soldiers, airmen and other service personnel killed an active service abroad, to visit the graves of their relatives.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to make possible the visits after the war of parents to the resting places of their sons who have fallen in the Middle East and on the Continent.

The Prime Minister: This proposal will be very carefully considered. But not now.

SOCIAL INSURANCE (PAMPHLET)

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Prime Minister if he will give an undertaking that no Minister will in future issue a propagandist pamphlet at public expense in support of a proposal of the Government which has not been discussed in Parliament similar to the pictoral pamphlet on social insurance issued by the Minister of Reconstruction.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not know what is going to happen in the future.

Sir H. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend compare this pamphlet with the last catalogue of Lewis's great white sale?

NAZI LEADERS (WAR CRIMES)

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether Hitler, Goering, Goebbels and Himmler are on the British or United Nations list of war criminals for trial in due course.

The Prime Minister: So far as the British List is concerned, the parties mentioned are included. It should not be assumed that the procedure of trial will necessarily be adopted. I am not in a position to make any statement about the United Nations' list at the present time.

Mr. Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the present terms of reference of the War Crimes Commission, none of these gentlemen would be indictable for any act committed against German nationals in Germany?

The Prime Minister: As I say, we have to consider a lot of countries and are working in touch with a great many countries. I was asked a Question which I was not particularly looking for, because all this is very general at the present time. We have not completed our job yet, and I am not able to give full answers respecting international bodies and international procedure.

Sir William Davison: Is not the War Crimes Commission examining whether these crimes are punishable under what we know as international law, and, in view of recent events, is not international law as we knew it a thing of the past, and is it not high time that we laid down how cases of this kind are to be dealt with in the future?

The Prime Minister: I would not commit myself to any sweeping assertions which appeared to challenge the broad foundations of international law. I do not think there is any immediate hurry about making any further announcements on this subject.

Mr. McGovern: Would the Prime Minister give an assurance that if any German citizens should shoot any of these individuals, they would not be dealt with as the assassin of Darlan was dealt with in North Africa?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is asking me to give an assurance covering a vast field of uncertainty which is influenced at every stage by hazard and chance.

TELEVISION COMMITTEE (REPORT)

Viscount Hinching;brooke: asked the Lord President of the Council when he expects to receive the Report of the Television Committee.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Attlee): I have ascertained that the Television Committee has made good progress, but it is not yet possible to say when its report will be ready.

Viscount Hinching;brooke: Will the report be published?

Mr. Attlee: I think so.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRODUCTION

Export Trade (Raw Materials)

Mr. Coleg;ate: asked the Minister of Production whether, in view of the serious exchange position arising owing to the low volume of British exports, he will take immediate steps to release substantially larger supplies of raw materials to firms engaged on manufacture for export.

The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, gave to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill) and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) on 26th September. Steps will be taken, when the times comes, to see that the allocation of raw materials for civil production including exports keeps step with the release of capacity and labour from war production.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Would it not be possible, where it is not practicable for a large bulk to be issued, for smaller supplies to be given to a firm so that they could make a certain amount into samples to be sent out with a view to future deliveries?

Mr. Lyttelton: My hon. Friend will have seen the arrangements which are being made for the manufacture of certain prototypes and samples.

Mr. Coleg;ate: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that this is universally considered in industrial circles as very unsatisfactory, and that this matter requires urgent and serious attention?

Captain Strickland: My right hon. Friend mentions "when the time comes;" will he indicate what sort of time he has in mind, because it is no use waiting until the end of the war before we start?

Mr. Lyttelton: As far as raw materials and such things as prototypes and samples are concerned I do not think there is any immediate difficulty.

Sir Oliver Simmonds: In view of the fact that some factory workers are already idle, is not the time for action now?

Mr. Stokes: When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of "when the times comes," will he make sure that the Americans do not steal a march on us? They have already done so.

Mr. Colegate: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment.

Paper Supplies (Allocation)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Minister of Production whether, in view of the shortage of paper, he will restrict the quantity of paper allotted to publishers of pamphlets and manifestos and correspondingly increase the amount allowed to British newspapers.

Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir. At this stage of the war I am not in favour of placing further restrictions on the small amount of paper available for pamphlets and manifestos, which is negligible as compared with the consumption of newsprint.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whether the quantity is negligible or not, the volume of pamphlets showered upon Members of Parliament is such that it is impossible to read them all, however edifying their contents, and that the greater part of mine go into the wastepaper basket? Could not the newspapers have a little more of this paper?

Mr. Salt: asked the Minister of Production whether he is aware that many important technical journals are still obliged by the paper shortage to refuse to print important technical data which would be of great value to British scientists in the development of new processes; and whether he will give an assurance that at an early opportunity the full requirement of scientific journals will be met as regards paper supplies.

Mr. Lyttelton: I can assure my hon. Friend that the fullest consideration will be given to the needs of technical journals as soon as paper supplies permit.

Mr. Salt: Will the Minister reply to the latter part of the Question, and say whether the supply can be increased?

Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot give an answer to it now. As soon as we can give it, we shall.

Mr. Bowles: Is not the paper situation getting better month by month?

Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir. Recent increases in allocation are due to our feeling that we can take a bit more risk on the stock position, rather than to any improvement in the current supply.

Mr. Messer: Is there not a lot of waste paper sent to Members of Parliament?

Civilian Goods

Sir Reginald Clarry: asked the Minister of Production what steps he is taking to release productive resources for civilian needs, in view of the reduced demand for war-time stores.

Sir George Schuster: asked the Minister of Production whether he can now make the statement which has been promised on the Government's policy in regard to the allocation of facilities for the manufacture of goods for export and civilian use.

Mr. Lyttelton: I would ask my hon. Friends to wait for the statement which I hope to make next week.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the Minister what he means by what he has said? Does he propose to make a statement at the end of Questions?

Mr. Lyttelton: I propose to make a statement at the end of Questions, with Mr. Speaker's permission.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that a statement is to be made on this very important question without an opportunity for debate?

Mr. Lyttelton: If a demand for a Debate on the preliminary information which I shall give in the statement is forthcoming, of course that is a matter to be taken up through the usual channels.

British Textile Mission (Report)

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Production if he has received the comments of his Department's representatives at Washington regarding the publication of the Report of the Textile Mission to the U.S.A.; and if he now proposes to make the Report available to the public or to Members of Parliament.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Report of the Mission is to be published by H.M. Stationery Office and will be available at an early date.

Mr. Burke: Can the Minister say whether there has been only one report and whether all of it will be available; and will he explain what "an early date" means?

Mr. Lyttelton: "An early date" is, I think, a matter of how long it takes to print. I think is will be available in the next fortnight, and so far as I know the whole report is being published. I am not quite certain.

Coal Industry (Steel Allocation)

Mr. Thomas Fraser: asked the Minister of Production if, in view of the reduction in the consumption of steel in other fields of war industry, he can now authorise an increase in the quota allowed to the mining industry.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am assured by my right hon. Friend the Minster of Fuel and Power that the allocations of steel to the coal mining industry, which have recently been increased, should prove adequate to the needs of the industry.

WHISKY DISTILLATION

Mr. Boothby: asked the Minister of Food whether the arrangements for a resumption of the distillation of whisky are proceeding smoothly and expeditiously.

The Minister of Food (Colonel Llewellin): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Boothby: May we have some assurance from the Minister that the whole lot will not be sent to the United States of America?

Colonel Llewellin: That question will not arise until some years ahead. Whisky is not sent abroad for at least five years after it is distilled.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Are we to accept the statements which have recently appeared in the Press that the Minister proposes to exercise some control over whisky distribution?

Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir. There is a new order dealing with the production and channels of sale of whisky.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Penicillin

Colonel Lyons: asked the Minister of Supply what steps have now been taken to secure mass production of penicillin.

The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): Seven plants, six of which are pilot plants, are at present producing penicillin in this country. Nine large-scale plants are expected to come into operation at various dates within the next six months. Two of them are about to start production.

Colonel Lyons: Is the Minister cognisant of the rapid strides made in America and Canada in the use of this very valuable drug? Can he not co-operate with the authorities there to get some machinery here?

Sir A. Duncan: We are in the closest touch with organisations in America and Canada and we have the active assistance of one of the American firms in one of the plants that we are putting up.

Steel Prices Schedules (Publication)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Supply why the related schedules of steel prices have not been published as Statutory Rules and Orders, having regard to the fact that persons who sell any steel article at prices above those specified in the related schedules are liable to be prosecuted.

Sir A. Duncan: As I have explained in a previous reply, the related schedules to the Iron and Steel Control Orders would constitute a bulky document running into many thousands of pages. In the interests of economy in paper and printing it has not, therefore, been the practice to print them with the Orders, though they are published documents available for inspection by any person interested. Particulars of the products and related schedules affected by price changes are published also in trade journals.

Sir H. Williams: Is the Minister aware that people sometimes have to travel long journeys for the purpose of inspecting these schedules?

Sir A. Duncan: This has been the practice now for the whole of the period of the war and I have never heard a com-

plaint. If my hon. Friend knows of any case in point I shall be glad to look into it.

Filters (Government Contracts)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister of Supply what contracts for air or oil filters have been placed by his Department with British Filters, Limited, of Market Harboro'; and how many Cromwell tanks were held up in consequence.

Sir A. Duncan: It would be contrary to established practice to disclose information about Government contracts placed with particular firms. With regard to the second part of the Question, there has been no hold up in the supply of Cromwell tanks on account of air or oil filters.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister aware that I have incontrovertible evidence that a considerable number of Cromwell tanks were fitted with this filter and that aircraft also have been so fitted, and that the filters endanger the lives of the men who use both types of war weapon? If I give him the facts will he have them looked into?

Sir A. Duncan: I will certainly have them looked into, but I would not like my hon. Friend to assume that they are facts. The allegations will be looked into.

Mr. Stokes: Is not the Minister aware that this filter is a cheap imitation of a good one?

Sir A. Duncan: No, Sir, I am not aware of that at all. I know that there are rival claims.

MERCHANT NAVY (PARLIAMEN TARY FRANCHISE)

Mr. Hug;h Lawson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport, approximately, what percentage of the personnel of the Merchant Navy have now had their names placed on the Register of Parliamentary Electors.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): Every practicable measure has been taken to remind Merchant Navy officers and men that they should complete the declaration cards by which they can ensure the inclusion of their names


on the electoral register. In particular, the matter is drawn to their attention by the Superintendents of my Ministry's Mercantile Marine offices, both when they are engaged for service in a ship and when they are discharged. Nevertheless, up to 25th September, the Registrar-General had only received cards from 1,824 officers and men, that is, from about 2½ per cent. of those who are eligible.

Mr. Lawson: What steps is the Minister taking to remedy this very unsatisfactory state of affairs?

Mr. Noel-Baker: We have done everything we can. I will gladly send my hon. Friend the details.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Are these cards being distributed through the shipowners, and have the naval control owners of various convoy ports where large numbers of ships are assembled frequently, also been asked to help?

Mr. Noel-Baker: They are distributed to our Mercantile Marine offices through the reserve pools which are run by the shipping federation, through the offices of the societies of officers and men, through our consular offices abroad and in foreign ports, and through the offices of shipping masters in British overseas ports.

Mr. Driberg;: Is the Minister aware that the notices displayed at the marine offices do not indicate that it will be necessary for seamen to fill up these cards, even if they have been registered and have voted before, and that the notices do not convey any sense of urgency or of the importance of the matter at all? Will he have the notices redrafted?

Mr. Noel-Baker: The posters emphasise the fact that if men do not fill up the cards they will not be able to vote.

Mr. Driberg;: No, excuse me, they do not.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I will inquire into the point raised by my hon. Friend. I think it is very important.

MILESTONES (REPLACEMENT)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of

War Transport if he is aware that milestones of historic interest in the West Riding of Yorkshire which were removed for reasons of security in 1940 have not yet been replaced; and if he will make a request to the local authorities concerned that these stones should be set up again in their original positions before their present whereabouts is forgotten.

Mr. Noel-Baker: As I have said in answer to a previous Parliamentary Question, I hope that highway authorities will replace milestone wherever possible, as soon as they can spare the labour which is required. I do not feel, however, that it would be appropriate at the present moment to issue a special circular, such as my hon. Friend proposes.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Uniformed Staffs (Holidays)

Mr. MacLaren: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he will recommend the granting of an increase of seven days' annual holiday to the uniformed staffs of all the railways.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The period of holiday for the uniformed staffs of the railways is the subject of agreements between the railway companies and the railway trade unions. Any proposal for a change in these agreements is a matter for consideration through the established machinery of negotiation.

Service Personnel (Privilege Tickets)

Mr. Burke: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he will consider increasing the number of privilege travelling tickets allowed to families of serving personnel.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Since 1st June of this year the wives of serving men have been allowed eight railway tickets a year at concession rates. There is no limit to the number they may obtain in order to visit Service patients who are in hospital; and there is no limit to the number allowed to unaccompanied children under 16 years of age. In view of the continued pressure on the railway passenger services, I do not feel that it would be justifiable to increase further the number of tickets at concession rates which axe allowed.

ROAD SAFETY (RESEARCH)

Mr. Salt: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport what scientific research is at present being conducted by or on behalf of his Ministry as regards traffic movements and safety on roads; what is the present total expenditure on road research of all kinds; and what fields are covered by such expenditure.

Mr. Noel-Baker: It is estimated that during the current year, the work of scientific research on road problems, in which my Ministry receive much assistance from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, will cost £43,000 during the current year. I am sending my hon. Friend detailed information about the field which it covers; he will, I am sure, understand why it is mainly devoted to finding ways in which the war effort may be served.
I hope that after the war we may embark on a much larger programme of research, and that effort will then be principally directed to problems of traffic movement and safety on the roads. I am now considering the organisation of this post-war work with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

Captain Sir William Brass: Will they take into consideration after the war the very slippery surface of the London roads, and try to improve it?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. The subject of non-skid surfaces is one of those that will come first.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

War and Peace Issues (Broadcasts)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Information whether the decision of the B.B.C. to provide facilities for persons to enter upon controversial subjects over the radio is intended to mean that those facilities are to be provided also for those who may be opposed to the policy of His Majesty's Government and the United Nations on the issues of peace and war.

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): I should be very surprised if the B.B.C. thought that listeners would have any interest in a broadcast which opposed the policy of the United Nations on the issues of peace and war.

Mr. Davies: How does the Minister know the mind of the people of this country?

Mr. Bracken: By natural common sense.

Mr. Stephen: Is the Minister aware that in the Bilston by-election, nearly half the electorate were in favour of I.L.P. policy?

Mr. Bracken: It is impossible to generalise on electoral accidents.

Mr. Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that all the common sense rests in his Department?

Mr. Bracken: Not entirely.

Injured Employee (Pay Stoppag;e)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Information whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that an employee of the Ministry of Information Press Censorship, whose name has been communicated to him, was injured by a flying bomb on 24th July, as a result of which he had to be sent to hospital for 11 days; that, as this employee had not been in the service of the Ministry for three months on the date of the incident, his pay was stopped for the 11 days he was in hospital; and will he reconsider the treatment of this case.

Mr. Bracken: I regret that the Ministry of Information has no power to reconsider this case. They are bound by the rules which apply to all Government Departments, and I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 3rd August in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower).

Sir H. Williams: Does my right hon. Friend not think it rather discreditable for the State to be such a harsh employer?

Sir Irving; Albery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that such treatment would not be meted out by any decent private employer?

British Publicity

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Minister of Information what steps he is taking to make known in France and other liberated countries the British Government's proposals to assure full employment, better national health and other social reforms upon which progress has been made since Dunkirk.

Mr. Bracken: Copies of the relevant White Papers, reference documents and articles on these subjects have already been sent to France in quantities which will allow each French newspaper to have a set. We should like to obtain a large distribution of these documents and other British publicity material. A vast amount is ready for delivery to France and Belgium. But I should be wanting in frankness were I not to tell the House that transport facilities available to the Ministry of Information could not be more unsatisfactory. I am told that when urgent military needs are fulfilled it will be possible for many more British books and newspapers to circulate in France and Belgium where I have every reason to know they are eagerly awaited.

Mr. Bartlett: asked the Minister of Information whether he will invite a group of prominent French and Belgian journalists to visit Britain at the earliest possible moment in order that they may learn details of the British war effort.

Mr. Bracken: Yes, Sir. Our Ambassador in Paris has already been asked to invite a number of French editors, and similar arrangements will be made for Belgian editors as soon as possible.

Mr. McGovern: Will the Minister make sure that none of these journalists who come will have any anti-war views?

Mr. A. Bevan: Will the Minister see to it, if he proposes to give facilities to Continental journalists to come to this country, that proper facilities will be given to British journalists to go to the Continent, and not necessarily in uniform?

Mr. Bracken: I very much hope that that suggestion will be fulfilled.

Co-operative Movement (Broadcast)

Sir Doug;las Hacking;: asked the Minister of Information if he is aware that, by permitting a broadcast on the advantages of the Co-operative movement at 1.15 p.m. on 18th September, the B.B.C. has been guilty of a violation of paragraph 3 of the licence between the Postmaster-General and the B.B.C.; and what steps he is taking to prevent similar violations or, alternatively, to allow other trading associations to broadcast.

Major Mills: asked the Minister of Information whether an opportunity will

be given to any associations of private traders to broadcast a reply to the reserved talk broadcast in the B.B.C. programme at 1.15 p.m. on Monday, 18th September, 1944, on behalf of the co-operative societies, in view of the fact that that broadcast, made in apparent violation of the licence granted to the B.B.C. amounted to free advertisement of the Co-operative Movement and a misuse of the B.B.C. monopoly.

Mr. Bracken: The Ministry of Information was not consulted before this broadcast celebrating the centenary of the Co-operative Movement was arranged, nor does it possess any power to require the B.B.C. to give private traders the opportunity of broadcasting a reply. I am advised that this broadcast was not a violation of Clause 3 of the B.B.C.'s Licence and Agreement with the Postmaster-General.

Sir D. Hacking;: Is the Minister aware that paragraph 3 of the licence says that the B.B.C. shall not broadcast any commercial advertisement? In order that some hon. Members may satisfy themselves whether this was a commercial advertisement, will he have a copy of the broadcast placed in the Library?

Mr. Bracken: There are plenty of precedents for broadcasts like this. For instance, a broadcast on the 250th anniversary of the Bank of England was actually given by the Governor, and I did not hear any of the people who believe in the nationalisation of the banks asking for an opportunity to reply to the Governor. There was a broadcast on the centenary of the Great Western Railway, but people who believe in the nationalisation of the railways or the road transport interests did not ask for an opportunity to reply on the B.B.C. I must ask my right hon. Friend to realise that a sense of perspective is desirable in dealing with the B.B.C.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Co-operative Movement has found it necessary to protest to the B.B.C. against the inadequate amount of publicity which was given to this historic event, which is of great interest to more than 9,000,000 families?

Mr. Bracken: Having been Minister of Information for three years I am not surprised by anything under the sun.

Sir W. Davison: Is not a broadcast about the Bank of England a very different thing from one about a trading concern like the Co-operative Movement?

Mr. Bracken: I should be very surprised indeed if the Bank of England did not regard itself as interested in trading and concerned with commerce, and in its day it has been a very considerable private trader.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I desire to ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make regarding the Business of the House, for this week and next week.

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. We propose to suspend the Rule to-day and to-morrow, so that we may make more progress with the Town and Country Planning Bill. We do not intend to sit unduly late, and, even with the suspension of the Rule, it would seem that we shall need at least another day to conclude this stage. I hope that hon. Members will co-operate with the Government to enable us to conclude the Committee stage on Friday of this week. If this cannot be done, then it will be necessary to sit on Monday of next week. I thought it desirable to let hon. Members know of that possibility, in order that they might make arrangements.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that it is rather exceptional to change the Business for Friday on Wednesday; but the time is exceptional, and no doubt Members will agree to this proposal. Will the Business which was to have been taken on Friday and which is now being postponed be taken next week?

Mr. Eden: I understand that it is somewhat unusual; but it is desirable that we should make progress, and I think it will be the general desire of the House to do as I have suggested. It is our intention to take the postponed Business next week.

Mr. Bowles: Does this not show that the Recess was rather too long?

Sir Joseph Lamb: If the House sits on Monday, at what time will the Sitting begin? My right hon. Friend will realise that it is very difficult for Members who have to travel long distances to get here on Monday for eleven o'clock?

Mr. Eden: We should not meet until half-past two, and there would not be any Questions.

Mr. Shinwell: Are not the Government to blame for this inconvenience and congestion of business? When it was suggested that seven weeks was too long for the Recess, they refused to accept any alternative proposal.

Mr. Eden: I thought that even the hon. Gentleman would realise that we did some quite good work in the Recess.

Mr. McGovern: Can we take it that the announcement of a Monday Sitting is rather a precautionary one, and that its object is to intimidate hon. Members?

Mr. Eden: The hon. Member is old enough a Parliamentarian to know that nothing is so foolish as to try to intimidate hon. Members. Our only purpose is to tell Members now, for their convenience.

Mr. Reakes: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether we are going to sit on Monday or not? It is a very important matter.

Mr. Eden: It does not rest with me; it depends on what progress we make. All I have done is to give advance notice for the convenience of hon. Members.

Mr. Sloan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Members travelling from Scotland would, in such a case, need to travel on Sunday night? Does he intend to juggle with times, just to suit Members who live in and around London?

Mr. Eden: There is nothing new in that problem.

Sir Leslie Boyce: On what day will Friday's Business be taken?

Mr. Eden: I will make the usual Business announcement to-morrow.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 3rd October].

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — >CLAUSE 1.—(Designation of areas of extensive war damage, and of land needed for providing for replacements in redevelopment thereof.)

Amendment proposed: In page 1, line 23, at the end, to insert:
Provided that where in any case all the land in an area of extensive war damage is held by one owner and he is able and willing to develop or redevelop the land consistently with the proper planning of the area of the local planning authority nothing in this Act shall authorise the local planning authority to purchase the interest of the said owner compulsorily."—[Lieut-Colonel Dower.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

12.6 p.m.

Captain Prescott: When the Committee concluded its proceedings yesterday I had just stated that I supported this Amendment. I had not time to qualify that statement, as I must do, or to express the reasons why I support the Amendment. I will be as brief as possible. There is nothing in the Bill, so far as I can gather, to indicate what constitutes an area of extensive war damage. It might be two or three acres or more, or it might be a very small area. The only matter on which the Minister has to be satisfied, so far as I can gather, is that it is an area of extensive war damage and that it is desirable that it should be redeveloped as a whole. I fully appreciate that, with regard to most of the areas of extensive war damage of considerable size, it will be inevitable, and more than desirable, that they should be acquired by the local authority and redeveloped as a whole. That will apply especially in London and some of our larger cities. But I am en-


visaging the case of some 10 or a dozen houses—and my support is limited for that reason—in a small area, which have been completely demolished as a result of one or two bombs. Those houses all belong to some developer who has built them at his own cost. The redevelopment of that site would be subject to town-planning restrictions, because the whole country is now deemed to be subject to an interim development order. It might be desirable that the owner should have permission to redevelop and that it should not be open to the local authority to make an application for an order under Clause 1.
If the right hon. Gentleman replies that in a case of that kind he would not give his consent to an application under Clause 1, I shall be quite content with that assurance, and will press the matter no further. In any event, even if this Amendment in toto were accepted, it would be possible for the local authority to avoid its application by incorporating one additional house on adjacent land, in which event the land would not belong to one owner, and therefore the local authority would be entitled to purchase it. In the case of a clearance order it is necessary that there should be one or more houses which are deemed to be unfit for human habitation. In that case, some restraint is placed upon the Minister in making an order, but, in the case of an order under Clause 1, I can see no limitation on the powers of the Minister. If there be a small area in which are three or four or 10 houses belonging to one owner, and he wishes to redevelop them in conformity with the scheme, he should be entitled to do so. I do not want it to be thought that I support a proposition that really extensive areas should be subject to this proviso—I do not—but I wish my right hon. Friend to consider the point I have put to him and, if necessary, to give some protection to the small man.

Sir Percy Harris: I am amazed by the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend opposite and cannot think what is behind it, unless it indicates a sudden stirring among certain sections of the community who feel they have a special responsibility to look after the landed interests. During the last 24 hours they have come to the front singing that old tune "Don't touch my land." I cannot believe that

the right hon. Gentleman will be led astray by the suggestion which has been put forward. There is no reason why the owner of a large property should be privileged in comparison with a small owner. I understood, according to the latest ideas, that hon. Members opposite claim that they stand for the small man, but if this Amendment were to be accepted all the replanning and redevelopment of bad areas which we have in view would be paralysed. I hope the hon. Member will not hold up procedure in this Committee by proposing what I can only call reactionary methods of this kind.

12.15 p.m.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I rise at this early stage in the proceedings in the hope that I may be able to assist the Committee to come to an early decision. I am afraid that it is quite impossible to accept the Amendment. It applies to areas of extensive war damage, and I cannot conceive of an instance of extensive war damage in an area in which all the property belonged to one man. I would further point out that to re-develop an area it is not necessary to acquire only the freehold but necessary for the authority to acquire all the interests, leasehold and any others. The whole object of this Clause 1 procedure is to clear up this mass of conflicting interests. If my hon. Friend can think of a ease where the fee simple of the land is in the possession of one owner and he has not leased any of it but still possesses all the interests in the land, I myself cannot conceive of such a case.
It would be quite impossible to accept the Amendment for that reason alone, but there are many other objections. Surely the area, if it is necessary to unite the ownership of it, should be in the hands of the local authority, which has to provide the sewers, the roads and all the other services which go to make a living community possible. I also feel that the words "willing and able," if they were allowed to remain in the Bill, might in future give rise to great questions of fact which it would be impossible ever adequately to resolve. Though it might be possible to say whether a man was willing, how could one guess or estimate his ability to carry out a long-term project of this character? To sum up my arguments against the


Amendment I would say that the chances of its ever having to be put into operation are so infinitely remote and the possibility of future litigation arising are so great that I hope the Committee will come to an early decision against it.

Major Mills: I should like to put another Point of view to my right hon. Friend, speaking not as a private landowner but to represent the case of a statutory body such as the Church Estates Commissioners, who do own extensive properties and have all the interests such as he has mentioned in those areas. They have endeavoured in the past to be good landowners and to help in the development of building estates, not only in their own interest but in the interests of the prospective tenants of those estates. I need mention only housing schemes in Westminster, Vauxhall and Lambeth. Their properties in London have not escaped the attentions of the enemy bombers or of flying bombs, and the Commissioners do intend to redevelop such war-damaged areas in accordance with the plans of the local authorities and in the best interests of dispossessed tenants. The Commissioners have substantial resources and they propose to do the work, and it cannot be necessary or right for a local authority to purchase compulsorily considerable areas of the land of the Commissioners if they are willing to develop it or redevelop it in accordance with the views of the local authority. The Commissioners have not in view the making of large profits out of such building, but would regard it as their duty as good landowners to do the work and help in the reconstruction of these devastated areas. The help that such a body as the Church Estates Commissioners, with their resources, would be able to give to the local authority would assist in the problem of reconstructing London, and I feel sure that if they applied to the Commissioners that assistance would be forthcoming.

Mr. Silkin: The suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and all other agencies capable of carrying out this work ought to come to the assistance of local authorities is one thing, and I can assure him that the help of no such agency will be despised. The task of reconstruction

will be so great that if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners come in to help their assistance will be most gratefully accepted. But that is quite a different matter from the proposal in this Amendment, which goes much further, and I am sure the hon. Member will agree that with this assurance that there will be the closest co-operation the Amendment should not be pressed.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I am glad that my hon. Friend has just spoken, because I think his reply is very much more satisfactory than the reply which has been given by the Minister. The point I should like the Committee to consider is what the Minister is going to do with this land after it has been acquired. I would say respectfully that it is quite likely that he will sell a long lease of it to speculators—not to the owner of the land but to speculators; and it seems to me that where there is a good owner who takes pride in his land and is ready to do the right thing and to do what the town planning authority wants he should be given a chance of doing it rather than that the matter should be left in the hands of a speculator who may have bought a lease of the land from the Minister after the land had been compulsorily acquired.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, to leave out "replacements," and to insert:
re-location of population or industry or for replacement of open space.
This Amendment is designed to provide a more satisfactory and realistic definition of what we have been accustomed to call "overspill". It is an ugly word, and I wish I could think of something short to express the same idea. The fear has occurred to me that the mere use of the word "replacements" might be held to indicate that what is intended in the areas to be acquired is a mere housing estate replacing block by block the dwelling-houses which had existed previously. Of course, that is not the intention. What is desired is to create in these new areas proper neighbourhood units comprising not only dwelling accommodation but all the other buildings, public open spaces and so on which are necessary to a healthy and happy life, and though the definition is a long one I think the Committee will agree that it is better than the old wording of the Clause.

Mr. Molson (The High Peak): May I ask for your guidance on this matter, Mr. Williams? This is entirely a question of definition and the Minister is proposing to substitute different words for what one may call the "term of art" which has been used in the Bill as drafted. He has another Amendment to the second paragraph of Sub-section (2) of this Clause, and I want to suggest a different drafting which would use the same word "replacements" which he is now proposing to omit and give to that word "replacements" exactly the same meaning as he desires to give to the words "re-location of industry." In doing so I do not want to be out of Order, but it is a little embarrassing when this point crops up here if it prejudices the definition of the word "replacements" or "relocation" as defined in the second paragraph of Sub-section (2).

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): This point of Order seems to deal with a somewhat technical point and perhaps we had better wait until we come to the second paragraph of Sub-section (2). For the moment we should discuss the Minister's rather simple Amendment which is before us.

Mr. Mander: While I appreciate very much the concession which the Minister has made I would ask him to go a little further in this respect. The reference is to the replacement of open spaces, but there may be a number of cases where there was not an open space before but where it is very desirable that there should be one. Instead of "replacements" cannot he say "the provision of open spaces," so that whether people have had an open space or not in the past they will have an opportunity of getting one now?

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the Ruling I gave a moment ago does rather concern what the Minister is doing in his later Amendment, and I would ask him if he could enlighten me on the position.

Mr. Molson: May I explain that what the Minister is seeking to do, as I understand it, is to insert a series of words all through the Bill in order to make quite certain that what is commonly called overspill will include replacing not only residents but also industry and open spaces; and when we come to the definition of it I was going to suggest, merely

for the purpose of avoiding the need for carrying a lot of consequential Amendments, that we should redraft slightly the interpretation in order that the word "replacements" all through the Bill should include not only the replacement of residents but also the replacement of industry and open spaces.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The point of view that I would like to commend to you, Mr. Williams, and the Committee on this matter is that it is primarily a drafting consideration that the words used should he as descriptive as possible of the idea which it is intended later to define. I feel that, though there would be some convenience in adopting the course which my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) suggests, the word "replacements" does give a fundamentally false picture of what it is intended to describe in the longer Amendment which follows. It is not a question of merely replacing things as they were but of relocating people, putting them in another place with all the necessary equipment. For that reason, though the course which my hon. Friend suggests has a certain convenience, it is only a matter of machinery to get the words put in, and I would suggest that the words "relocation of population and industry" are more descriptive of what is intended than the word "replacements" and I would ask him when we come to that point to accept my words.

The Deputy-Chairman: That point will be arguable on the Amendment when we come to it.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: I would like to come back to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) whether my right hon. Friend does not think that the word "provision" would be a more suitable word than the word "replacement." He has met an Amendment which we have down in a later Clause and we are grateful to him, but it seems to me that, assuming that these blitzed areas had no open spaces at all, if we use the ward "replacement" it does not give the authorities the liberty they should have.

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend can be assured that every proper provision is made for open spaces.

Mr. Huggh Lawson: As well as the replacement of existing open spaces, will this Amendment allow of open spaces on a very much more generous scale?

Mr. Mander: Do I understand that the word "replacement" really includes the provision of open spaces?

Mr. Morrison: Re-location, not replacement.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, leave out "within," and insert "before the expiration of."
This is a drafting Amendment, consequential upon what I have previously put before the Committee.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, leave out "commencement of this Act," and insert "date appointed under the preceding subsection."
This is also consequential on what I have previously stated.
Amendment agreed to.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, after "Act," to insert:
and in the case of agricultural land after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.
The purpose of this Amendment is to secure that land which is really suitable for agriculture shall not unnecessarily be taken for the purpose of building. Houses can be built on almost any kind of land, provided it is not of a swampy character, but good agricultural land is not found everywhere. I am sure that my right hon. Friend, as an ex-Minister of Agriculture, will be entirely sympathetic to this proposal. He may feel some objection to the form of the Amendment on the ground that, it might be considered to impair the doctrine of collective Ministerial responsibility. That aspect of the matter was raised during the passage of the Education Bill. An Amendment was inserted in another place which required the Minister of Education in certain circumstances to consult with one of his colleagues. The Minister of Education resisted the Amendment in this House and he resisted it mainly on the ground that, if he were going to consult one of his colleagues, having regard to the immense scope of the Bill, he would

haves, in one way or another, to consult most of his colleagues about various matters that would arise in pursuance of the Education Bill. He, of course, mentioned that it infringed the doctrine of collective Ministerial responsibility. I do not think that that doctrine ought to be pressed too far, because, after all, if it were carried to its logical conclusion, we would not find in Bills and Acts reference to the Minister for this or for that. We would more conveniently just use the term "the Government," but as we always assign responsibility to the particular Minister to whom the work is appropriate, I think it is not unreasonable to suggest, when the Department of another Minister is intimately concerned, that that Minister should be brought into consultation before a final decision is taken. Indeed, in this very Bill, we find that certificates are required from other Ministers.
For instance, a certificate is required from the Minister of War Transport in certain circumstances. Well, that is something rather stronger than the consultation proposed in this Amendment. I feel that there are real merits in securing consultation with the Minister of Agriculture, but the presence of these words in the Act would also emphasise the vital necessity of regarding agricultural land in this country as of special importance. We have had sufficient experience now of its vital value to the community, and I think that planning can proceed quite unimpaired by respecting such agricultural land as is really good agricultural land, and that a distinction between good and bad agricultural land will be much more apparent after the war than it is at present. At present crops are being raised on all kinds of land regardless of cost, but when cost becomes a very real matter, and when subsidies eventually disappear, as I hope they will, then farmers will be vitally concerned with cost, and crops will be raised only upon such land as is good land. Therefore, it would be a great pity if, in the hurry of planning in the next year or two, good agricultural land were built upon, and I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will accept this Amendment in order to emphasise to local authorities the importance of respecting good agricultural land.

Sir Joseph Lamb: I hope the Minister will give favourable consideration to this Amendment because, after all, in the national interest to-day, we are


giving instructions as to what use is to be made of land, and when we are interfering with the free choice of the agriculturists, I think it is desirable that the opinion of the Minister of Agriculture should be considered. I do not say that he should have a controlling interest, but that the view of the Minister of Agriculture should be considered before any decision is come to by the planners who, themselves, would not know much about it. The Minister may say that, naturally, in the course of things, this consultation would take place as between Departments. That is quite true, and we know that a great deal of consultation does take place, but I think it is desirable that provision for such consultation should be in the Bill, because it is not assured that that will always be the case, whereas if it is specifically provided for in the Bill, it would mean that the matter would have the consideration of the Minister in whose charge it is.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: My hon. Friend who proposed this Amendment and my hon. Friend who has just spoken have both interpreted in advance what I am about to say, both in its favourable sense to their Amendment and in its unfavourable sense. Certainly it is one of the objects of Government planning to secure that land is put to its best use and that good agricultural land shall not be sealed off from production where houses can be placed on land of less value. I have stated that principle many times and we have carried it into effect. Indeed, I can tell the Committee that, to enable this purpose to be adequately pursued in future, we are in possession of more information now than we were in the past. A survey has been carried out of the agricultural land that is likely to be affected and its varying degrees of fertility assessed, and these particulars are in my Department and also in the Department of the Minister of Agriculture. The co-operation between us to secure this primary object of planning, extends not only to the Ministerial level, but the regional level where both he and I have regional officers who collaborate closely together, and I can tell the Committee that in the selection of sites for the projected housing programme, the agricultural aspect of the matter has been considered in every case before consent has been given. That never happened before,

but it is a daily occurrence and habit of the two Departments now.
There remains only the objection to statutory provision for the consultation. There is the constitutional objection to which my hon. Friend refers, namely, that the Government speak and act as one. To require consultation with one particular Minister, does transgress that principle. In the work of my Department I have to consult, not only the Minister of Agriculture but many other Ministers, because a policy of the proper use of land in any particular instance brings in the widest considerations of Government and the well-being of the people in their various districts. I would give my hon. Friend and the Committee the most firm assurance that not only will this policy be followed in the future, but that it is being done now, and that machinery exists for this process to go on continuously and without interruption. With that assurance, I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.

Mr. R. Morgan: I intervene only to say that I was going to support my hon. Friend in his Amendment, but I think it very important that we should get a clear-cut issue about the land required. I am not thinking only of good agricultural land, but of land which is now cultivated and in a poor way. I am talking about farm land in an area where they might want a school, or where a large part of the land might be needed for new houses. What I would like the Minister to assure me is that such plots of land, very considerable in size, would be carefully examined, and, if necessary, the owners of that land would not be required to give a three years' extension of notice after the end of the war. It seems to me that it will hold up the whole scheme of planning for a large city because of the threat that they have got a three years' lease after the termination of the war, which would seriously handicap large-scale planning in many areas.

12.45 p.m.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: I understand that the Minister gives us an assurance that agricultural property will be properly looked after. No sound town and country planning scheme can be evolved, unless agricultural production is properly safeguarded. If the


Minister gives us this assurance, why does he not put it in the Bill? We have several Amendments on the Order Paper on the same subject, and I am not sure that they will be called. We want more protection in the Bill for agricultural production. The necessity for this has been pointed out, and, if we want food production and agricultural interests in this country fostered, this recommendation which the Minister himself has made, and which I am sure is approved by most of us, should be carried out. I think the Bill should have some safeguard in it, and I cannot see why these words, which are really a minor safeguard, or this proposal, should not be put into the Bill. We may have Ministers of Agriculture who understand agriculture and are in sympathy with it, but we may also, at some time, have a Minister who does not. This provision may not always be carried out, and agriculture may be reduced, by war damage and other things, to the state in which it found itself 20 years ago. It is easy enough to deal with war damage on the farms. It is not like the towns, where you have whole streets demolished. It is essential that knowledge of the planning of the countryside should be available, and that the Minister of Agriculture should be consulted. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give more than the present assurance, but will have a provision put in the Bill, even at a later stage.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: If I may support my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken, I would say that we ought never to forget the terrible discrepancy between the money obtained for agricultural land and that obtained for building land. For that reason, I still hope that the Minister can make a greater concession and put this provision in the Bill. I think it very important that it should be emphasised.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: I rise to support the arguments advanced in the last two speeches. The Minister's speech was satisfactory, as far as it went. It showed that my right hon. Friend will take all the steps he can to see that agricultural land is not used for building, if other land is available. It is, I think, of great importance that something should be put in the Bill in regard to this matter. I cannot see the difficulty, because—I think it is in

Clause 12—the Minister of Agriculture is brought in with regard to commons, and, if he is brought into consultation in regard to commons, why should he not be brought in regarding other land? It is important that we should have this put down in the Bill.

Sir J. Mellor: While I appreciate the difficulty of my right hon. Friend in accepting the words of this Amendment on constitutional grounds, I wonder if he could not find some way of putting into the Bill words which would operate as an instruction to planning authorities to have full respect for agricultural land. The Minister spoke of consultations, not only at the Ministerial level but at the regional level. That may be all right for the moment, but regional authorities may disappear immediately after the war. Personally, I hope very much that they will. If they do disappear, consultation at the lower level will disappear with them.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: No.

Sir J. Mellor: My right hon. Friend is aware that there is another stage of the Bill at which he could introduce words to secure that consultation shall take place at the lower level. I think something is necessary to impress upon local authorities their duty in respect of agricultural land.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I hope my hon. Friends will accept the assurance I gave, which I do not think could be in stronger or more definite terms, that agricultural needs and necessities will be a primary object of Government policy in the use of land. We shall try to keep all the good land we can; we have too little of it now. But the constitutional objection remains. Reference was made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte), to consultations with the Minister of Agriculture, under Clause 12, in regard to commons. That was put in because the Minister of Agriculture has, by statute, certain duties and obligations in regard to commons, and it is to clear that up that it conies in there.
With regard to what has been said about regional authorities, I would like to clear up what is probably a misapprehension in the mind of the mover of the Amendment. When I dealt with co-operation on a regional level, I was not


referring to the Regional Commissioners set up for the purposes of the war, but to the subordinate officers of our two Departments, being all of them civil servants who are dispersed into the various Regions, and act there between, the local authorities and ourselves here, and it is these people who will actually have to secure that local authorities have regard to the needs of agriculture. In every case, that has been done, and they are not likely to disappear.

Sir J. Mellor: Does the Minister mean that the Land Commissioners and the War Agricultural Executive Committees will be consulted by the planning authorities?

Mr. Morrison: The machinery for this is novel, and, if it would interest my hon. Friend, I would add that, in each Region, there is a Regional Rural Land Utilisation Officer. He is an officer of the Ministry of Agriculture whose concern is to watch over agricultural land in all these planning schemes. There is also an officer of my Ministry, the Regional Planning Officer and these two will consult together before the land is devoted to non-agricultural purposes. It is new machinery, created for the purpose of carrying out the spirit of my hon. Friend's Amendment, and I hope he will not press it by transgressing upon the constitutional question.

Sir Ernest Shepperson: Our difficulty is that the statement which the Minister has made goes out in HANSARD, but this Bill, if passed, goes on the Statute Book, and future authorities will be governed by the Statute and not by HANSARD. That is our only difficulty in regard to the Bill. We would like to have the assurance that, during the whole duration of this Bill, we would have the present Minister in charge. If we had that assurance, there would be no difficulty.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: If my right hon. Friend will not put this in the Bill, will he make it an instruction that the land utilisation officer is bound to be consulted by the planning authorities?

Mr. Hug;h Lawson: While I fully agree that the Minister should consult the Minister of Agriculture on these matters, I am a bit worried by one thing which the Minister said—that it was a primary object in these matters to regard land for

the purpose of agriculture. It seems to me that it could quite easily happen that an area of overspill might be regarded as desirable for building a satellite town. If you are going to do that, you will have to take in a large amount of agricultural land and convert it to urban use. I do not want the Minister to say anything which would discourage local authorities, in suitable cases, from taking agricultural land, if it is necessary, for building satellite towns.

Sir J. Mellor: Before I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, would my tight hon. Friend answer the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte)?

Mr. Morrison: It would be out of Order.
Amendment negatived.

Major Sir Derrick Gunston (Thorn-bury): I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, after "land," insert:
whether within their area or not.
This is a qualifying Amendment, and I think we ought to make the position quite clear. It would be rather disastrous, I think, if it was discovered after the passing of this Bill, and after the Minister gave his consent for the compulsory acquisition of land under Clause 1, that the scheme for some of this land outside the area of the authority could not be carried out. I understand that the words "any land" would cover the point, but perhaps the Minister would give us an assurance on the matter? I should like to ask my right hon. Friend or the Solicitor-General if they are satisfied that there is no danger that, in future, it may be interpreted as applying only to land within the area of the authority? I think it would be wise if these words were inserted.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Henry Strauss): I can reassure my hon. and gallant Friend that this Amendment is unnecessary, and, because it is unnecessary, it is undesirable. So far from strengthening the point which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind, it would weaken it, because the words which he seeks to insert are plainly covered by the Clause as drafted. In every passage of the Bill, when the intention is to limit the purchase to land within the area of the authority,


the Bill expressly so provides. It would be undesirable to qualify the expression "any land" by the words which my hon. Friend suggests, and, with that assurance, I hope he will withdraw the Amendment.

Sir D. Gunston: I thank my hon. Friend and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Commander Bower: I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, at end, insert:
Provided that the Minister shall not make an order declaring the land to be subject to compulsory purchase for the purpose of replacements which is occupied and used for the purpose of industry or business.
1.0 p.m.
The object of this Amendment is, I think, quite clear. We feel that, as the Bill at present stands, a planning authority may very well do great injury to existing industry by taking over premises which are actually being used for industrial purposes, in order to rehouse people brought from blitzed areas. We feel that, in the very difficult circumstances of the transition from a war-time to a peace-time economy, it is essential that there should be as little interference as possible with building up industry and trade immediately after the war, especially having regard to the enormous commitments in the way of social services with which we know the Government are going to be saddled. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurance, even if he does not accept the Amendment, that some steps will be taken to see that undue interference with the progress of industry will not be tolerated in any of these schemes.

Mr. John Dugdale: I hope that the Minister will resist the Amendment, which seems to be contrary to all sound town planning principles. Up to now residential land has always had preference over industrial, and when a business asks to be allowed to extend inside a residential area, it is prevented from having more than the permitted one-eighth. It would be unfortunate if the tendency to remove a business from a purely residential area were interfered with in any way. I would be surprised if the mover of the Amendment did not complain if he found a factory developing itself at his front door. He would take

steps to see that his own residential area was as free from factories as possible. I hope that in future town planning will tend towards the separation of residential from business areas. It would be a pity if a man came to regard his home not so much as his castle, but as the back door to someone else's factory, and I trust that the Minister will resist the Amendment.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The Amendment, as it stands, cannot be accepted because it would unduly prejudice proper planning in the future and I can give my hon. and gallant Friend the assurance that he requires. Common prudence would prevent a planning authority from unnecessarily demolishing a building in beneficial occupation for trade or industry but to insert the restrictions that my hon. and gallant Friend proposes might seriously prejudice the planning of an industrial area in regard to the construction of some necessary road which might be advisable for the amenity of the community. My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that good administration, both locally and at the centre, will prevent unnecessary extensive destruction and I hope he will withdraw the Amendment, which would, I think, unduly hamper proper planning in these areas.

Commander Bower: In view of the assurance of my right hon. Friend, although I am not prepared to admit that all local authorities are invariably acting with common prudence, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out from "expression," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert:
're-location of population or industry' means, in relation to an area of extensive war damage, rendering available elsewhere than in that area, whether in an existing community or in a community to be newly established, accommodation for residential purposes or for the carrying on of business or other activities, together with all appropriate public services, facilities for recreation, worship and amenity and other requirements, being accommodation to be rendered available for persons or undertakings who are living or carrying on business or other activities in that area or who were doing so but by reason of war circumstances are no longer for the time being doing so, and whose continued or resumed location in that area would be inconsistent with the proper planning thereof; and the expression 'replacement of open space' means, in relation to an area of extensive war damage, rendering land


available for use as an open space or otherwise in an undeveloped state in substitution for land in that area which is so used.
This Amendment is really consequential on what I said earlier. It is a new definition of replacement, and I do not know whether the Committee would like me to spend time upon it. I think it is wide enough to cover all requisites for creating good communities in these areas.

Sir J. Lamb: The next Amendment to the Clause stands in my name—in page 2, line 11, after "providing," insert "in connection therewith," and there is an Amendment later in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stafford (Major Thorneycroft)—in page 2, line 18, leave out from "state," to end of Sub-section. Are they now to be called or can we deal with them on this particular Amendment?

The Deputy-Chairman: We have to decide whether the words proposed to be left out are to stand or not.

Sir J. Lamb: Is it made clear, with the substitution of the words in the proposed Amendment, that, in considering the question of open spaces, it will not be the duty of the planners to provide open spaces where open spaces have previously been in existence, but to provide them where they are necessary in other areas under their planning schemes? It is common knowledge that open spaces should be provided in all areas where they are necessary and not where they existed before. If I am assured of that, there will be no necessity for the Amendments to which I refer.

Mr. Molson: Is there any object in the last few words of the Amendment:
In substitution for land in that area which is so used.
Would it not be more convenient if it were left with "land available … in an undeveloped state"? I doubt whether anything is met by the additional words.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) the assurance he wants, and I can reply to my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) in the following way. The general words in the proposed definition are wide enough to include the proper provision of open spaces within that proposed new community. The later words to which he

referred relate to a contingency which it is possible might arise, namely, that in the replanning of a congested urban area, it may be a good plan to cover the existing open space with houses. These additional words give power to a planning authority to provide, in substitution for the open space which is covered in the built up area, an open space outside for the people in the built up area.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hammersley: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, after "statement," to insert "and map."
The Amendment is a very simple one. Sub-section (4) as at present drafted reads:
An application … shall be accompanied by such statement … indicating the manner in which it is intended that the land … should be laid out.
The Committee will readily agree that a verbal statement, however precise and carefully worded, cannot give an adequate and clear impression of what is proposed. I hope that it is not necessary for me to argue this at any length and that the Minister will find his way to accept the Amendment.

Mr. H. Strauss: I can accept the Amendment in principle though not in the words proposed. There is no doubt that a map will be required to illustrate the proposals of the local planning authority. The actual form of the words, however, requires rather careful consideration and I would suggest to my hon. Friend that he should withdraw his Amendment on the undertaking that the matter will be considered and an appropriate form of words will be moved by my right hon. and learned Friend at a later stage.

Viscount Hinching;brooke: If the Parliamentary Secretary will look at Sub-section (3) he will see that a map or maps annexed to the application are required. It is surely sufficient for the purpose to attach the map to the application, as provided for in Sub-section (3). Each Sub-section deals with a different point—No. 3 with the map and No. 4 with the statement, and both have to be attached to the application.

Mr. Strauss: I will certainly look at the point that my hon. Friend has made.

Viscount Hinching;brooke: That makes the Amendment unnecessary.

Mr. Strauss: I think not. I will satisfy my Noble Friend when we come to deal with the Clause.

Mr. Hammersley: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment on the undertaking which has been given by the Minister.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, after "indicating," to insert "in general terms."
The words fit in well with the Amendment which has already been accepted. Those familiar with the preparation of schemes for town planning as it existed before the procedure outlined in the Bill, will be aware that the task of defining in words with any exactitude what was intended involved a great deal of labour, and did not, in the end, convey to anybody anything more than could have been found by consulting a map. It has been agreed in principle that a map should be an appropriate part of the procedure in Sub-section (4) and, therefore, if any provision is retained to secure descriptive matter, it is only right that that descriptive matter should be of a general character, and not of the old-fashioned exactitude which has proved such a hindrance in the past.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: There is no intention at all to ask for particulars from local authorities in excess of the degree that it is necessary to establish the case for the acquisition of the land. Therefore the addition of the proposed words would not alter the general existing practice very much but would be mischievous in another sense. It might be necessary in some cases, particularly on the fringe of the area that is designated, that a proposed new road or the land ought to be indicated with preciseness. I fear that if the Amendment were accepted, I might be precluded by the words of the Statute from requiring that degree of precision in such a case that would be necessary for the proper administration of the proposal. That is my fear, but I think that nothing could be more reasonable from the point of view of local authorities than the proposal in the Section, which is that in the first place it is for the local

authorities themselves, not me, to decide what statement is necessary to establish their case. Then I am given powers to ask for further particulars if I should require them. What I have particularly in mind are the fringe areas, the lay-out of new roads and so on, and I would therefore ask my hon. and learned Friend to leave the Clause as drafted.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: Would the right hon. Gentleman particularise his assurance a little further? He referred to the existing practice which does in fact cast a heavy duty upon those preparing these plans. I agree entirely with what he said about the necessity for more particularisation in respect of the fringe areas and on the lay-out of roads—there is a case for them—but here we are dealing not only with the fringe and the roads but also the way in which the land will be developed inside the area, and the local authority ought not at this stage to be tied down to extra particularity on the method, any more than would be outlined in a map. I would ask my right hon. Friend, for the assistance of the planning authorities and not for any other purpose, to extend his assurance a little and to say that he will not demand, with respect to the internal description, the same particularity as he will with regard to roads and fringe areas.

Mr. Morrison: I can give the general assurance, if it will assist my hon. and learned Friend, that the proposals should be indicated only sufficiently to establish the case for the order. I cannot go further than that. I shall try to administer the Section in the best and most reasonable spirit to secure precision where precision is necessary, but not to clog administration by requiring information in excess of the amount required for me to discharge my duty.

Mr. Hughes: Upon that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Temporary Chairman (Col. Sir A. Lambert Ward): It seems to me that the next five Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin)—in page 2, line 34, leave out from "arrangement," to "and," in line 35; in line 38, at end, insert:
Provided that the authority, with the consent of the Minister, may vary the statement from time to time.";


in line 38, at end, insert:
(5) An application for an order under this section shall be further accompanied by such information as may be necessary to indicate the relation between the intended lay-out of the land in the area of extensive war damage and the existing or intended lay-out of the surrounding locality.'';
in line 40, after "statement," insert "and further information as aforesaid,"; and in page 3, line 4, leave out "and of the statement submitted to. him"—cover very much the same ground, and it may be for the convenience of the Committee if they are all discussed together.

Mr. John Wilmot: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, to leave out from "arrangement" to "and," in line 35.
This Amendment is, as you say, Sir Lambert, a suitable one on which to discuss this principle. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) and I are very much obliged to the Minister for the undertaking he has just given as to the spirit in which the arrangements will be carried out, and we are glad he agrees that it would be undesirable to go into over-precise and rigid detail at this stage of the business. We think, however, that it would be better if these words were left out so that there is no requirement to deal with the surrounding locality. We think perhaps the case would be best met—for the reasons which the Minister explained and well understood, and which it is unnecessary for me to go into again—if the arrangements with regard to the surrounding locality were dealt with in a separate document submitted to the Minister which would have regard to the general relationship between the proposed development and the surrounding locality, which would be indicated for the Minister's information and would contain all that he wanted it to contain, by additions subsequently, if necessary, to satisfy him that this was an Order which he ought to make.
It is proposed to make it clear that the lay-out of the area shown in the statement is not unalterable and these subsequent Amendments deal with that; it is not to be a rigid plan which cannot be subsequently departed from, because, if that is insisted upon, will it not lead to hasty work which subsequent experience and development might make it very desirable to amend? The local authority might, to take one aspect of it, be unable within the time to do all the exact and

precise work that is necessary, and being quite unable, of course, to foresee the development during the years to come, it would make a general request for a requisition of large areas of land which might not be necessary at all. It would be very much better in our view, therefore, if the authority were able subsequently to amend and adjust and make more precise its plan in the light of experience. If these words were amended, what is required to be done, in the spirit of what the Minister said, would be confined to the area, and the surrounding locality would be indicated in a separate document for the Minister's information to enable him to have the information that he ought to have in coming to a judgment on the application, and then this surrounding area could be subject to amendment and adjustment and improvement. That is the spirit of these Amendments and perhaps, if I leave it there, it would suit the convenience of the Committee.

Mr. H. Strauss: I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Kennington (Mr. Wilmot) has in mind, but I cannot advise the Committee to accept this series of Amendments. I think really the conclusive argument against them is perhaps this, that the relationship of the proposals for the war damaged area to the planning of the wider area must be made public in order that the question whether the proposals for the area of extensive war damage are good justification for the compulsory acquisition may be settled. The justification of the compulsory acquisition will depend on the plans as a whole. Indeed, if you take the plan for the internal area alone, it may be unintelligible, and the position of a person who wishes to argue whether the proposed acquisition is justified or not, must depend on some knowledge of the relationship of the planning of the internal area with the surrounding area.
The various points on good planning and planning for a complete area, which I know the hon. Member for Kennington has very much in mind, demand that they should be considered together, and I think they also demand that anybody who wishes to have an opportunity of commenting on the validity and rightness of the plan should have that same knowledge. For those reasons I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment. As for


the spirit with which my Ministry proposes to co-operate with the planning authority, I do not think there is any difference in any quarter of the Committee, but I think that the proposals for the limited publication, which this series of Amendments would allow, would really not be in accordance with the justice of all parties which we have endeavoured, by the drafting of this Clause, to secure.

Mr. Wilmot: Would the Minister be willing to make it clear that the plan of the area shown in the statement is not necessarily to be unalterable but can, with the consent of the Minister, be amended in the light of greater experience or new circumstances? If that were done, it would go a very long way to meet the intention of these Amendments. Could I have the Minister's assurance on that?

Mr. Strauss: Does the hon. Member mean that if there is amendment, there should be no publication of the amendment?

Mr. Wilmot: No. The Minister has already given the reason why he cannot accept that, and I am bound to accept it too. Within that limitation which he finds it necessary to impose, provided there is publication at a subsequent date of an alteration of the original plan made in the light of new circumstances, I want that to be in order and to be within the framework of the Act, so that the Minister may have discretion to approve the alteration and so that the original plan shall not be cast out as unalterable.

Mr. Strauss: I am anxious not to give any assurance that I am not quite certain is right, and it may be that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will help us further on this. My view at the moment is that there will be no impossibility of desirable amendments provided there is adequate publication of the amendments, but I do not think, at the moment, that I am in a position to give the assurance for which my hon. Friend is asking me. However, I will consider the point.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I am very much in sympathy with the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Kennington {Mr. Wilmot) and I think it would be a great mistake if the original plan were cast out. However, one must look at the

other point of view, which is that if any modifications or alterations were made to that plan, then there must be the same safeguards and the same checks which the Minister has been good enough to suggest should apply to the application as a whole. If my right hon. Friend is able to devise some means by which those can apply to any alteration in the plan, then it would certainly have my wholehearted support.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Perhaps I might say just a word on this matter as I know it is very important. We shall certainly consider everything that has been said. The position as I see it is this, that in so far as the local authority concerned is asked to provide few particulars, these particulars are of major importance. In the case of a highly detailed requirement, of course, such a requirement would entail upon the local authority the duty of providing a great deal of minute information, but in so far as the administration requires only the broad outlines, it would not be right to allow those broad outlines to be varied without suitable notice. I think that all my hon. Friends are after is that if there is anything of importance which is required to be varied, then it should be published, but that the authority should not be unnecessarily tied down with minutiae from proceeding with the reconstruction of its area in strict accordance, it may be, with minor points in its application.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: May I press the Minister to go a little further? We have only got to the stage when an authority will be providing a map, and upon that map will appear, I hope, fairly generally, the type of development in the different parts of area to be planned. It may well happen that between the time when this has been accepted and the Order made under Clause 1, to the time when development and acquisition under Clause 2 actually take place, a proposition may be put to the local authority which would need an adjustment of the different areas, say the industrial as compared with the residential.
1.30 p.m.
I have in mind an inquiry in which I took part, although I now forget whether I appeared for the owner of the property or for the authority. What happened was that the area, which was


destined for industrial development, turned out not to be large enough to enable further industrial development to take place. The area was described as industrial and pleasing in appearance and it was said the development would not affect the amenities of the nearby area for residential purposes. In such a case I think it would be quite right for the local authority to adjust the boundaries laid out in order to permit such a desirable development. As things are now I do not see that such a possibility would be open to any authority. I quite agree that they should be required to give proper notice of their intention but I would like the Minister to say that there should not be, about these boundaries, a finality that would prevent the planning authority from altering them, subject to the Minister's consent and subject to publication before they got to the next stage.

Mr. Wilmot: The Minister has gone so far in this matter that I hesitate to press him further but he used the term "minutiae." It is rather more than that. Let us take a possible case: A planning authority anticipates industrial development and it provides, therefore, in its original plan for the surrounding authority, an area of housing development on the only land that is available, agricultural land. That plan is sanctioned. If, subsequently, it appears that industrial development will not take place to the extent anticipated and, therefore, the housing development may not be required, it would be quite wrong not to be able to amend the plan to meet the changed circumstances. That would not be a change of detail but a change of major outline. I want to ask the Minister to include that kind of possibility within the definition which he has made, because it would be quite wrong to make rigid something which was drawn up in circumstances which were different from those which had occurred. If the Minister would enlarge his definition to the kind of case I have mentioned I should be very happy.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I hope the Minister will consider carefully indeed before accepting the suggestion which has just been made by the hon. Member opposite. The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) based his support of the Amendment on two grounds, which seemed to me to be

quite distinct. While I would be prepared to support the view that there should be flexibility for alteration of the layout within an area which is the subject of the original application, it seems that if you are going to leave discretion to the local authority—

Mr. Wilmot: To the Minister.

Mr. Manning;ham-Buller: To the local authority to alter an area affected by its application from time to time, maybe more than once, you will get no finality in this matter. You may get a local authority applying in the first place for more than it wants and a lot of people would be put to unnecessary trouble in being served with notices with which they ought not to be served. I want the local authority to do its job properly. After all, they have five years from the date of the passing of the Act to put forward proper applications, and I should have thought that that would suffice. In regard to the internal layout of the application, I agree that that should be subject to alteration from time to time if the local planning authority and the Ministry think fit, but different considerations seem to apply with regard to the extent of the area. There may be a case for saying that in certain circumstances there should be minor adjustments, but I hope the Minister will consider carefully before he gives any assurance with regard to the area.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) is too harsh. What he has been saying is tantamount to a freezing of the plan of the local authority, agreed upon at any time during the next five years, until we choose to legislate again on this subject. I think opportunities must be given to local authorities to vary their plans. We are, in a sense, in this Committee, up against one of the great difficulties involved in planning on a big scale. I hope the Minister will look into the possibility of giving both local authorities and individuals means by which a readjustment of their plans, as a result of changes which are bound to take place through the development of trade and industry, may be made. We must not arrive at a situation in which we freeze a particular plan, and insist upon it being carried out to the last detail.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: It is a rare occasion when I find myself in partial agreement with the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), but I feel rather sympathetic towards the Amendment from the point of view which was put forward yesterday when we discussed the question of accelerating dilatory authorities. My right hon. Friend said some words would be brought forward on the Report stage with a view to removing unnecessary delay, following our request for a reduction of the period from five to two years.

Mr. Manning;ham-Buller: The Minister said nothing about reducing the period. He gave an assurance about investigating the possibilities of speeding up local authorities, but he made it quite clear that he was not prepared to reduce the period from five years to two.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Perhaps I might try to help the Committee in this difficult matter, which arises not so much on the words of the Statute which it is being sought to amend but on the problem of administration, in holding the proper balance between the two great interests which are at stake. I gave my own description of how I thought things would work out and said that on broader issues I should have to have notice but not on little things. I have been asked to go a stage further, and my hon. Friend opposite quoted an interesting case which might easily arise. I hope he will not ask me to expand my assurance, but will accept the general spirit of this administrative problem, which is that local authorities and the Minister, any Minister in my position, must act as co-operators in a common task and not fight against each other. If both local authorities and my Department administrate in that sense then I feel sure that the difficulties which appear formidable will not arise.

Mr. Wilmot: That suits me admirably, except for one point. The Minister may not be protected against property interests who might say that in consenting to an alteration of plans which have been laid and published he was doing something which was ultra vires. I should be glad to have an assurance from the Solicitor-General that if the Minister thought such a case as I mentioned was a case where plans of the surrounding area should be altered, and he approved it,

he would not be acting outside the Statute or be attacked for doing so.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I quite appreciate the importance of the point which has been raised by the hon. Member, and he will appreciate that it is very difficult here to get out of the region of degree and distinguish it from the region of principle. If there was a complete alteration in the suggested plan, the view might well be taken that that should be a matter for a fresh start.

Mr. Wilmot: It would be too late for a fresh start.

The Solicitor-General: I think it is best, if I am not derogating from the authority of my right hon. Friend, to consider again the question of an amendment of this scheme.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: At this stage?

The Solicitor-General: At this stage. I entirely agree that practically every problem will be an administrative one, which will be covered, but I should be very pleased to give my attention towards assisting my right hon. Friend on the point which is worrying my two hon. Friends opposite. If we consider that any special provision for amendment, with the corollary of protection of those who are affected, is required, we shall bring the matter before the House again. I hope that will satisfy my hon. Friends.

Major Lloyd: I have listened carefully to what the Solicitor-General has said, and I would like to say that some of us here are divided on this point, are not by any means in agreement with the argument which has been put forward and towards which my hon. and learned Friend has appeared to be unduly sympathetic. I hope the matter will be given very careful consideration.

Mr. Moelwyn Hug;hes: I would like to assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we appreciate what it is that he desires to protect and that the Amendment is concerned with the users of the land more than with an area of acquisition. As regards land which may be affected by acquisition it is quite immaterial to them what may be the purpose to which


the land will be put. The assurance given will not prejudice in any way property interests that may be affected.

Mr. Wilmot: In view of the wide assurance given by the Minister and the undertaking which the Solicitor-General has given to see that the Minister is not stopped from exercising his discretion, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Temporary Chairman: I take it that the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Wilmot) does not wish to proceed with the other Amendments.

Mr. Wilmot: No.

1.45 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, after "hours" insert:
and a place where a copy may be obtained on payment of a prescribed fee.
What I have in mind is a case where a vast number of people who are very seriously concerned as to how an application will affect them, and who will be wondering whether they are going to lose their homes, their shops or their businesses or, alternatively, may welcome the new development as a means to reinstate their shops or homes, when they go to see what is to happen will not have proper facilities for examining the application carefully. These official documents may be understood by Members of Parliament but very often their constituents have not the foggiest idea what the words actually mean. I see a picture in my mind of people, very harassed, wondering what is to happen, going there and being told, "There you are. Those are the particulars. Have a look at them and then pass them on." I do not think that is really treating the public as they ought to be treated. If, as occurs now, anyone is affected under an Act of Parliament he can go to the Stationery Office and buy a copy of the Act and take it to his friends or to his family solicitor, if he has one, and ask exactly what it means and how it will affect him. The same kind of provision should be inserted in this Bill. You cannot do very much more to a person than take away his home, or provide him with another, as the case may be. He is affected in his most vital interest. His whole future life may de-

pend upon it. Will he have to leave his circle of friends? Will he lose the goodwill of his little shop? Will he have to change his whole method of life? I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that there shall be made available for him a copy which will show him how the application will affect him, so that he can take away a piece of paper which in his own time and in his own way he can examine to find out what is to happen to him.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accede to this almost impossible request. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is apparently not familiar with planning maps. It has been the rule for authorities to have these maps available for inspection, and the smallest possible scale from which any particular owner of property may expect to get some indication of how his property will be affected is the 25-inch ordnance map. The hon. and gallant Gentleman stressed the case of the small shopkeeper. You cannot ascertain how a small shop will be affected from any ordnance map less than the 25-inch one. Planning maps which are exhibited in the offices of local authorities generally require a special room and a wall to themselves. The Amendment calls for a copy of the map covering the area to be re-planned. It is not a request for the reproduction of a small piece of the map but for a copy of the whole map. To make these copies available at a prescribed fee would lead to all sorts of fantastic results. In the first place, the reproduction of the map would be extremely costly, and if the Committee decided that it had to be reproduced, we are faced with the fanciful figure of the small shopkeeper taking home with him a copy of the map of such a size that he has not a wall in his shop where he can hang it up to study it. It is difficult to imagine that the Amendment was thought out before it was put on the Paper. I hope the Committee will not waste time upon it and that the right hon. Gentleman will reject it out of hand.

Sir J. Lamb: Are not most planning maps made in sections?

Mr. Hug;hes: The Amendment refers to copies of the map which the authority will have to submit to the Minister, and it is one copy and not a collection of maps which will have to be submitted. The question of sections does not arise.

Mr. Coleg;ate: I support the Amendment because of the peculiar circumstances in which many of these owners will be placed during the next few years. I am not certain that, if we were in fairly normal times, I should support it. The hon. and learned Gentleman has shown no appreciation at all of the conditions that are likely to be found. We are considering a period about five or six years hence. It is clear that during the next five years thousands of owners will be overseas not only in the Army, but in the Navy and the Air Force—they will be required in Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, all over the place [AN HON. MEMBER: "Wrekin and all."]We are not frightened for The Wrekin. Many a lad from the Severn lies beside the Nile today. It shows a complete lack of imagination on the opposite side not to realise what conditions are to-day and what they will be during the next five years. Why should an owner serving overseas not be able to get a copy of a plan that is going to affect his property? Perhaps he writes to his sister or his wife to ask what is happening. Is she, an unqualified person, with no technical qualifications, to go to the Town Hall and reproduce in detail, with all the legal terminology and so forth, exactly how that person's property will be affected? The simplest thing is to have a copy of the scheme and the map.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong about the map. It is a copy or copies. Many of these schemes will have scores of maps connected with them and it will be easy and cheap to reproduce them. I have had a great deal of work with maps on the 6-inch scale. It is quite possible to reproduce a portion of the 25-inch or 6-inch ordnance survey map at a low price, accompanied by the printed descriptive matter, showing how the scheme operates and will affect owners whose properties are included. We hear from time to time that the interests of people in the Middle and Far East are forgotten. I do not think it is in the main true, but here is a signal case where we can show that we are not going to neglect those men and the conditions under which they are serving in the next few years, and that we are taking the trouble to make provision which will ensure that they shall get proper and adequate information about the schemes that we are

passing in their absence which will affect their property interests.

Sir J. Mellor: I think the Amendment is absolutely necessary and, if it is not incorporated in the Bill, the result will be chaos. Let the Committee contemplate what will occur at the place where the copy of the application, etc., is to be seen. There will be people queueing up while the person who at the moment has access to the copy, or to the map, is scribbling away, trying to get down a copy of it for his own, use and trying to sketch out something resembling a map. I do not think that is unduly fanciful. It may well take him an hour or more to get down on paper the part of the map and the descriptive matter which affects his own property. While he is doing that there may be scores of people waiting to do the same. Unless some provision is made to meet a case like this it will create great public indignation. Surely this is quite a common sort of provision in an Act of Parliament. I believe that under the Companies Act shareholders, indeed I believe the general public, can obtain copies of lists of shareholders at a prescribed fee. There is a much stronger case here, where everything will be done in rather a hurry. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be helpful about this. It will cost very little to have copies made of the application and the descriptive material. I was rather surprised that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) made such a strong objection about the map. The 25-inch maps can be purchased quite cheaply and they could be sold at cost price to applicants. It is only fair that if somebody's property is to be affected he should have facilities for purchasing a 25-inch map, and he would probably be content with having the Ordinance reference number and getting a map from the Stationery Office. I cannot understand why there should be any objection to the Amendment.

2.0 p.m.

Viscount Hinching;brooke: I am a little disappointed at the attitude of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes). Members opposite are always showing a great interest in a thriving democracy, and their friends in the country are constantly advocating an interest in civic affairs. I feel that this Bill is a great moment for the local


authorities, and no doubt the more enterprising of them will arrange exhibitions of plans and maps such as we have seen in London. They might charge a fee, as suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend. I do not see why we should not insist in this Bill that there should be some form of local exhibition of the plan with maps in order that the public could see what was proposed. That is not very dissimilar from what my hon. and gallant Friend suggests. He asks merely that a place should be fixed where a copy of the map and plans could be inspected on payment of a fee. That is very little different from the conception which I have envisaged, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will alter his outlook on the matter.

Mr. Hughes: On the question of an exhibition, I would whole-heartedly support the Noble Lord, but the Amendment refers to obtaining a copy on payment of a fee. That is a different thing from the project of the Noble Lord, with which I agree.

The Solicitor-General: All of us have the greatest sympathy with the idea behind the Amendment, namely, that everyone should be well and completely informed as to what is going on. We start from that general agreement, but it is important, before we put new and unprecedented burdens on administrations, to consider what it is that we are anxious to secure for everyone concerned. What the owner wants to know is, first, whether his land is in the area made subject to compulsory purchase, and, second, what the proposals are for redevelopment on which the planning authority base their case for purchase. My Noble Friend, with the full concurrence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes), is agreed, indeed, everyone is agreed, that there should be ample powers for inspection and observation of both the Order and the map.

Mr. Hughes: And the encouragement of exhibitions.

The Solicitor-General: Without tying ourselves down by putting it in the Statute, we all want the greatest encouragement for exhibitions and the fullest opportunity given for observation and, of course, for taking any notes that may be required. Again, I think that we are all

agreed up to that point. The question is whether that is enough. We have to look at the facts of the position, and if anything further is needed it will be from the point of view of taking some action or making representations or the like. In my own experience, which I do not think is unique, practically all the action is generally taken by organisations dealing with classes of property. It is always open to any individual to make an individual objection, and it is right that he should be able to do it, but the effective action has, in my experience, always been taken by those organisations in which a number of individuals are included. It may be an ad hoc body of residents.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: That is only because the other people are so small that they do not want to be involved in costs and they feel that they are between the devil and the deep sea.

The Solicitor-General: I am only putting my own experience. I have been in a great number of these inquiries, and I have found that when there is a matter that has to be brought up, it is generally brought up either by an association or by a group of people combined ad hoc to do it. I never found that anyone was debarred from putting forward his objections, or that anyone has been handicapped in going, as we agree they should be entitled to, and are entitled to, to have a look at the big map with the colouring with which we are all so familiar, and the statement. If in any special circumstances there is some big interest, in the sense that large numbers are combining to make certain representations—which is the practical way in which it works—I have no doubt that the local authorities will help. They always have done so in the past in matters with which I have been familiar by providing a map by private arrangement.
My hon. Friends are proposing to go further in this Amendment. They are by implication placing the liability on the local authority to prepare a vast number of copies of both statement and map. My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) called precedent to his assistance. That was a matter of asking for the balance sheets of a company in accordance with a procedure which has gone on since 1869. I think, however, that my hon. Friend, with all his assiduity,


will not find a single precedent in the town planning or housing Acts for the burden which he would impose. I could not sympathise more with the aspect of the matter which my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) had in mind. We all realise that there will be numbers of people who are overseas and we have to consider their position. If, however, a man is overseas, I really think that the control of his property must be in the hands of his solicitor or some relative or some agent.
I would ask the Committee to remember that we are trying to get a move on with a most urgent problem. We are trying, as my right hon. Friend has said, this morning, to get that co-operation between the central and the local authorities which is absolutely essential if this matter is to be made a success. I ask my hon. Friends to accept it that everyone sees, the Government especially, the need for the greatest information being available and not to press in so difficult a task for this unprecedented liability to be placed on local authorities, on whom so heavy a portion of the task lies. I therefore ask them to take the via media, which came almost simultaneously from my Noble Friend and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen, of full inspection, exhibition and information.
Amendment negatived.

Sir E. Shepperson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, after "time," insert:
(not being less than twenty-eight days after the date of the first publication of the notice in the local newspaper).
This is an Amendment to obtain time, and because I am asking for time, I will be careful that I do not waste any time. Sub-section (5, a) states that notice of the application and its contents must be published by "Gazette" and local advertisement, and we think that the notice should specify the time in which objections to the application should be made. On the previous Amendment it was mentioned that many men who are concerned are overseas. The Amendment simply asks for 28 days after the notice as the period in which objection to the application may be made. Those of us who are in rural areas are not quick moving. We are slow as a rule, and we want a little more time because of our dilatory and slow methods.

2.15 p.m.

Mr. Coleĥate: I support the Amendment, which comes from those more intimately concerned with agriculture. The reason we ask for 28 days has been put by my hon. Friend quite succinctly. It is very important that some time limit should be in, and it will be agreed that 28 days is as short a time as could be expected. It will not hold up the scheme in any way. There seems to be a belief in some quarters of the Committee that by jockeying things through we hurry things up, but the only true way of getting things through quickly is to see that all the interests concerned know, at the earliest possible moment, what a scheme is and have an opportunity at an early date to put forward their objections. I hope that the Minister will see his way to accept this very small period.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I think the Committee, in general, will agree that the spirit in which the Amendment has been put forward is reasonable. I propose to accept the Amendment in principle, but to have a look at the actual drafting before committing myself to the words. Having given that assurance I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Hughes: In accepting it in principle, is the Minister accepting the period?

Mr. Morrison: I will not confine myself to the actual period stated in the Amendment. The time limit for objections to schemes made under the Act of 1932 is 21 days from the second publication in the local newspaper, and that is roughly the same as the 28 days proposed in the Amendment. I see nothing prima facie unreasonable in what the Amendment proposes, but I will reserve my opinion till the matter has been further examined.

Sir E. Shepperson: I very greatly appreciate what the Minister has said, and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 3, line 8, to leave out "such," and to insert:
every owner of the land to which the application relates and on such other."—[Sir J. Mellor.]

In page 3, line 10, at the end, to insert:
and
(c) serve by registered post an individual notice to each owner affected."—[Dr. Russell Thomas.]

The Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if these Amendments are discussed together, if the Committee are agreeable to that course.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Sir J. Mellor: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, to leave out "such," and insert:
every owner of the land to which the application relates and on such other.
The purpose of the Amendment is to secure that the owner shall receive notice of the application as of right, and not merely in the exercise of the discretion of the Minister. I use the expression "owner" in the sense used in the interpretation Clause 49, which includes under that expression not only freeholders but leaseholders, in cases where the unexpired term exceeds three years. In the ordinary way there should be no difficulty at all in effecting service of notices upon owners, hut there are cases which might happen quite frequently, particularly in the next few years, in which owners cannot easily be found. There are other cases in which the identity of the owners cannot easily be ascertained. I do not think that that should in any way reinforce objections to the Amendment.
Those two contingencies are amply provided for in Clause 43, which gives details about the service of notices. In regard to owners who cannot be found, paragraph (b) of Clause 43 enables service to be effected by leaving the notice at the last known place of abode. Under (c), service can be effected by sending the notice in a prepaid registered letter addressed to the person at his last known place of abode. I think they amply cover any difficulty arising through owners not being easy to trace. With regard to the other aspect of the matter—and this is mentioned in the Uthwatt Report—difficulty often arises through its not being easy to ascertain with any great certainty the identity of the owner. That contingency is also amply covered by Clause 43, which states:
If it is not practicable, after reasonable inquiry to ascertain the name or address of a person on whom … it should be served,

service can be effected by delivering it to some person on the land or
by affixing it … to some conspicuous part of the land.
The latter provision is rather like the service of a notice of the arrest of a ship, when the Admiralty Marshal's notice is affixed to the mast. Clause 43 affords the widest possible facility for effecting service of notice in almost every conceivable kind of case.
The importance of securing that the owner should be entitled to service of the notice in the best way that can be devised in practice, seems very much greater here than in any ordinary state of affairs, because the owners are likely to be scattered over the face of this country or of the earth. If they do not get notice, it will be impossible for them to make any lawful objection. I do not think that acceptance of the Amendment will involve the slightest delay, but if it did involve some small delay that would be justified by the fact that the planning authorities are allowed five years—a very long period—in which to make their applications.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I support all that has been said by my hon. Friend. I was not impressed by what the Solicitor-General said a moment ago that this would add to the burdens which we are placing on local authorities. We must not lose sight of the fact that great injustices may be inflicted by the Bill upon particular individuals. Hon. Members opposite might perhaps be a little more generous to their fellow-citizens. They are constantly concerned with saying that the local authorities must get on with the good work for the sake of the people, but they must remember that the people are composed of individuals who may well be exposed to harshness and injustice. We should make certain that we not only notify people in a general way, but definitely notify each person, and we should take the trouble to see that he gets a letter signed by the local authority in order to ensure that he knows what is going to happen to his property.
Advertisement in the local paper will not be sufficient. It was suggested yesterday that everybody in the particular locality should read the debates of the local authority, but people are very unlikely to do that. Far more than notice in tie local paper is required when the


Minister makes new orders; individuals who are concerned should not only receive notices, but the notices should be sent to them by registered letter. This is an entirely different matter to the preliminary advertisement in local newspapers we discussed yesterday. Many districts of this country have hardly a local paper at all, and they probably would not be taken by the individuals affected. Advertisements of this kind are frequently surrounded in the columns of the newspaper by other advertisements and may escape the notice even of a reader. Moreover, many of these people are scattered overseas fighting for their country and it would be deplorable if they should come home and find that property in the blitzed areas has been taken away from them.

2.30 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I do not think there is much difference between the Amendments which we are discussing together. Paragraph 2 (b) of the Second Schedule states that the notice has to be served on every owner, lessee or occupier. On reading this part of the Bill I wondered why the Minister should have any discretion at all. Why should he be able to say that a person who is affected as the result of an application need not be given notice?
That is the power which this Clause would confer on the Minister, the power to omit certain individuals, whom presumably he selects, from receiving notice of the application under this Sub-section. That seems to me wrong. I can see no reason for extending the Minister's powers to that extent. One does not want to delay the making of these orders and compulsory acquisition in any sense at all, but it seems to me only right that the persons whose land is affected, the people who are living on the land, whose homes may have been there for generations—they may have been living in a small house there for generations—should have notice. When the local planning authority are contemplating taking their land away it seems to me absolutely right that those who are serving the country overseas should not have their land taken away without some attempt being made to give them notice of the proposal. As the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) has said, the provisions of Clause

43 are quite wide enough for all adequate steps to be taken for giving proper notice to all persons affected without any delay being entailed. I am not very concerned about the actual form of the Amendment, and I am not prepared to enter into discussion as to whether the form which my hon. Friend has moved is better than the form of the Amendment standing in my name, but I urge the Minister to cut down his powers a little, to deprive himself of this discretion, and to make it a condition precedent to the exercise of these powers that steps should be taken under Clause 43 to serve notice on every person affected.

Mr. Wilmot: I quite understand the desire of the hon. Member who has just spoken that no person should suffer injustice in this matter. The hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Thomas) said he did not want, in fact they both said they did not want, to delay the replanning of the blitzed towns, but surely this would make for great delays, because the local authority does not know where all the owners are, and it is impossible—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Will the hon. Member look at Clause 43, where it says:
Any notice or document required or authorised to be served or given under this Act may be served or given either …
Then follow (a), (b), (c) and (d) which set out the various ways; and paragraph (f) says:
if it is not practicable after reasonable inquiry to ascertain the name or address of a person on whom it should be served or to whom it should be given as being a person having an interest in land … by affixing it, or a copy of it, to some conspicuous part of the land.
That is all that has to be done.

Mr. Wilmot: I should be out of Order in pursuing a reference to a later Clause, so I shall have to confine myself to the Amendment already moved. It seems to me and my friends that the Clause as drafted is quite satisfactory. No one will want to take harsh measures, but to go through the complicated process known as reference will mean months of delay. The hon. Member for Southampton {Dr. Thomas), like myself, represents in this House a stricken area. We both have thousands of constituents who not only may suffer but are suffering now; they are homeless, and there is nothing much that can happen to a person which is


worse than being homeless. They will remain homeless until the actions which this Bill is designed to make possible are carried out, and I think we ought to be very careful that we do not clutter up the machinery with safeguards and provisions which will have the effect of continuing the present chaos after the men come back from the war. To avoid that seems to me our major objective. We have to get people housed, and we have to do it with a minimum of hardship to the owners of property, but we cannot allow formal "referencing" and "noticing" and the rest of it to obstruct the main purpose of erecting houses and planning the site. I am convinced that if this Amendment were carried in its present form that is what it would do.

Major Lloyd: I cannot follow the argument of my hon. Friend opposite that the Amendment is likely to cumber or clutter up the Bill or cause unnecessary delay. The Amendment in connection with Ministerial powers, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manning;ham-Buller) has spoken, is rather different from the others in that while all of us who are associated with these Amendments feel that notice should be served on those who ought to receive notice, our particular Amendment deals with the case where the Minister has delegated to himself to decide upon whom notice should be served. I cannot see why he should desire these particular powers. I await his explanation on that particular point. I feel myself that a very important point of principle is involved in the Amendment. I hope the Minister will be able fully to justify notice not, apparently, being served on those who certainly ought to have notice, if he wishes to have the power to differentiate between those who shall, and those who shall not, have notices. If that explanation is anything like the explanation given by my hon. Friend opposite, that the Amendment would clutter up or cumber up the process of the Bill, I shall be surprised.

Captain Prescott: I have had some personal experience of the kind of work involved in referencing an area which has been scheduled, or is about to be scheduled, as a clearance area under the Housing Act. The work to be done in giving notice under Clause 1 would be similar to the work which has to be done under the Housing Act in trying to

acquire an area of houses unfit for human habitation. I entirely sympathise with my hon. Friends who urge that everything possible must be done to see that all those vitally interested are given such notice as is reasonably possible, but I ask them to hesitate before pressing the Amendment on the Minister, and the Minister to hesitate before he accepts it. This is a matter of some urgency, and the areas one is dealing with under Clause 1 are of a very special nature. Very largely there is no property on them, and I think that in circumstances such as this it is necessary to disregard some of the provisions which under ordinary circumstances I would myself advocate most strongly. In this case the enormous amount of work that has to be done ordinarily should be dispensed with. One hon. Member has referred to Clause 43. I think I may mention in passing paragraph (f). It has been argued that if the owner were not know notice could be given by a notice being affixed on the land. That is perfectly true, but if the Amendment were carried surely it would mean that in any area of extensive war damage a separate notice would have to be affixed on each plot of land, whereas the Minister can properly and with equal effectiveness put up one huge hoarding on the land, which would give better notice. I suggest that while the objects behind these Amendments are good they should not be pressed.

Mr. Molson: I agree with everything that has fallen from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Darwen (Captain Prescott). I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew {Major Lloyd) that this series of Amendments raise an important matter of principle. In fact, they really go to the whole root of this Bill. The purpose of this Bill is chiefly to provide an expeditious procedure for dealing with the devastated areas. If it were required that the ordinary procedure should be applied in the case of the blitzed areas there would really be no gain in this Bill. One of the Amendments now being discussed is taken from the Second Schedule, and the Second Schedule provides the procedure under which land can be acquired under Clause 10, that is, the non-expedited procedure. The effect of that Amendment would be in effect to do away with the expedited procedure. Therefore, land acquired under


Clause 1 would not receive any more expeditious procedure than land acquired under Clause 10.
As regards referencing, as was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor), there is a procedure for giving notice under Clause 43, but if he will turn to Clause 49 he will find that the owner is defined as anyone entitled
whether in possession or in reversion and includes also a person holding or entitled to the rents and profits of the building or land under a lease or agreement.
Therefore in order to ascertain who all the owners were who would be entitled to receive individual notice it would be necessary for these local authorities to ascertain all those who held any one of these interests in land which are specified in Clause 49. Under this Bill as originally introduced, and as it still is, there are these different degrees of expedition in acquiring land, and under an Amendment we shall be discussing later the Minister is proposing to alter the structure of the Bill to give himself some discretion to specify what persons can reasonably be expected to require individual notice of the acquisition of land. I regretted the tone of suspicion which I thought crept into some of the speeches. I see no reason why the Minister, who is accountable to this House, should not hold the balance quite fairly and evenly between a local authority seeking to acquire the land, and the owners of the land themselves. I hope, therefore, that the Government will resist these Amendments which, as the hon. and gallant Member for East Renfrew has said, are important because they really do go to the root of the Bill.

2.45 P.m.

Mr. Gallacher: It has already been pointed out that the urgency is to provide houses for the blitzed areas, for people who want houses now, because that is the cause of the introduction of the Bill. But there are a number of Members of this Committee, Tory Members, for whom the urgent question is the protection of landlords' rights. On the one hand, there are those who are concerned with the urgency of providing people with homes, and, on the other hand, there are those who are concerned with the urgency of protecting the landowners' property. I say that some Conservatives have been less concerned with

protecting the people who need homes, than with protecting the rents of the owners.

Major Lloyd: On a point of Order. Has this anything to do with the Amendment?

The Chairman (Major Milner): I was hoping that the hon. Member would address himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Gallacher: There is another point, and I want to recommend it to the protectors of landlords' rents. The hon. Member opposite asked why the Minister should have discretion. The answer is very simple. One of the Minister's colleagues is the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has made a very great study of this question of land and has put it on record, so that everyone can read it, that the land of this country has been obtained by murder, robbery—

The Chairman: This has nothing to do with the Amendment.

Mr. Gallacher: The question has arisen as to why the Minister should have discretion. I am pointing out why it is necessary that the Minister should have discretion. The Secretary of State for Scotland has put this down, so that everybody can read it. He says that many of the landlords have got their land by murder, robbery, rape, and—

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: The reference to the last method by which the hon. Member has said that the landowners have obtained their land is nonsense.

Mr. Gallacher: It is not my statement! I am not addicted to that form of accusation. It is the statement of a colleague of the Minister. Surely it is right that the Minister should have discretion to deal with a landowner who has got his land by murder. I would only say that I am in favour of serving a notice on every landlord to go to work in a pit, or at some other useful occupation.

Mr. H. Strauss: We have heard a variety of speeches, and I think that, with the exception of the last—which, incidentally, described various novel means of land acquisition—most people have shown a desire for two things. The first is that the main purposes of the Bill shall not be defeated: that is to say we must get rid of those proceedings which, in the experience of the Ministry and of the local


authorities, are so burdensome and so long that they hold up schemes. On the other hand, we must see that adequate notice is given, if possible, to all persons who are affected. That is the object of the Clause, as drawn. These Amendments, in one form or another—and I am glad that, for the convenience of the Committee, we are taking them together—restore the burden of referencing—I must use the term which has become universal, horrible though it is. Both my right hon. Friend and I made it perfectly clear in the Second Reading Debate that one of the main improvements achieved by this Bill was to get rid of the burden of referencing.
I would remind the Committee that referencing means compiling a book of reference of all owners, lessees, and occupiers, and of their individual holdings, and of serving notice upon those people. My right hon. Friend, in the Second Reading Debate, gave an example of the amount of work that could be involved in compiling that book of reference. He gave the example of the experience of the London County Council. They found that to compile such a list of the owners of 1,500 acres in six weeks would require 1,500 men. The burden is a quite impossible burden if we are to make quick progress with this urgent work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and others quoted the definition in a later Clause, and pointed out alternative modes of service where the primary mode of service enjoined was not practicable. But that does not meet the question of the labour involved in compiling the book; and that is the main difficulty which it is the purpose of the whole structure of the Bill to avoid in these urgent cases. As to the discretion vested in the Minister, that is a discretion, of course, to direct individual service in addition to the prescribed notice laid down in the previous Sub-section. If it stood alone and there were no adequate provision for advertising, the position would be very different. I must be careful not to allude, except in passing, to anything subsequent in the Bill, but I hope that my hon. Friend who questioned the simplification introduced into this matter by the Bill will have in mind the fact that we are proposing that, after the original advertisement, any person affected can at his

request receive individual notice of each subsequent stage. We are merely avoiding the burden, which has proved quite intolerable to the local authorities, and the delay which it has involved, and which is necessarily involved if this book of reference has to be compiled in the way that would be involved by all the Amendments we are considering.

Sir J. Mellor: Would not such a book have to be compiled for purposes of compulsory purchase, even if it were not required for designation?

Mr. Strauss: I cannot deal with those conditions. They come at a later stage, and we can consider them then; but I will be glad to satisfy my hon. Friend when we come to that point that it does not involve the burdensome task of referencing. Because it would abolish one of the main improvements which it is the purpose of the Bill to provide, I must advise the Committee to reject the Amendment. Having said that, I hope that I and my right hon. Friend will not be suspected of minimising the importance of seeing that adequate notice is given to persons affected, so that they can exercise all the rights that Parliament has given them; but this burdensome referencing will have no corresponding advantage. It will be possible for any landowner who takes a reasonable interest in these matters to follow the advertisements which are provided. To make it a condition precedent to setting the whole proceedings in operation that such a book of reference should be compiled and the old course followed, would be really to defeat the main improvements proposed in this Bill.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I have listened with care to what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. I am sure that we are all in agreement that what we want is that everybody shall get adequate notice of any improvement. The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) seems to regard any persons who disagree with him as being suspiciously-minded. I am not concerned with trying to get referencing or delay, but when the Parliamentary Secretary says that the object of this Clause is to see that everybody concerned gets adequate notice, I must say that it does not seem to me to provide any such thing. It seems to me that the Minister can omit to give adequate notice to anyone who is concerned. I would ask


him to see whether between now and the Report stage the wording of the Clause could be improved, to ensure that adequate notice is given, as far as possible, and to remove the possibility of any person concerned not getting notice.

Captain Duncan: I would like to support my hon. Friend in asking the Minister to consider this question. In view of the galaxy of legal talent here, I hesitate to intervene. Both yesterday and to-day I have seen no fewer than four legal Members on the Front Bench. As an ordinary person, without legal experience, I hesitate to intervene, but, having had some experience in the last four years of giving leave to soldiers to go to London about their blitzed property, I think we are in a dilemma between doing justice to the ordinary people who need houses quickly—and they, of course, are mostly soldiers—and doing justice to the owners of property. I want to see as much justice as possible done to the individual, whether he is the owner, the lessee, or the occupier of the property, consistent with the urgency of this question of replanning the blitzed areas. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Darwen (Captain Prescott) says that most of these properties would be rubble. That is not quite correct, because the Clause takes in not only the rubble but the area contiguous thereto. It seems to me that we have to be careful about giving up citizens' rights in the interests of easy administration and of the alleged speed of administration. It is said that this book of reference could be compiled more quickly. That is letting the machine get hold of us, and letting the citizens suffer. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will reconsider this matter, and see if some measures to safeguard the ordinary citizen cannot be achieved between now and the Report stage.

3.0 p.m.

Dr. Russell Thomas: I do not see how the Bill is going to help in the direction of solving the housing difficulty.

The Chairman: The question does not arise. The hon. Gentleman has spoken once and moved his Amendment.

Dr. Russell Thomas: The point has been made by an hon. Member opposite and by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Sir J. Mellor: As the Parliamentary Secretary based his case upon the considerable labour which would be involved in the preparation of such a list, I do think that I am entitled to a rather fuller explanation than he gave as to why he contemplates that that labour should be done in the preparation of a book of reference for the purpose of compulsory purchase, but cannot be done for purposes of designation. I cannot see all that difference in it, and I wish he would give a fuller explanation.

Mr. H. Strauss: I am most anxious not to be discourteous. What I say, of course, applies to the compiling of a book of reference for the purpose with which we are dealing in Clause 1. If my hon. Friend has some point, on something which is to be compiled under a later Clause, I would suggest for his consideration he might leave it until we reach that Clause. I am not sure to what he is referring.

Sir J. Mellor: The Parliamentary Secretary's point is the great difficulty of compiling such a book of reference. He bases his rejection of my Amendment on that. Surely the work has to be done sooner or later because a book of reference would have to be compiled for the purpose of compulsory purchase and if it has to be done sooner or later why not sooner?

The Attorney-General: It has not to be done sooner or later. In the Sixth Schedule the order takes effect as a block notice to treat. We cannot discuss that now. My hon. Friend is wrong in thinking that a reference list has to be compiled for the later stages.

Sir J. Mellor: In that case, I think it makes it all the more necessary that we should insist upon this Amendment.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, at the end, to insert:
and the provisions of the Schedule (Procedure for dealing with objections) to this Act shall have effect in relation to the application if any objection thereto is duly made.
This is the first of a series of Amendments for the purpose of introducing a new Schedule for dealing with objections. The points of detail that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will wish to discuss might be most conveniently dealt with when we come to consider the Schedule and, if


that commends itself to the Committee, I would suggest passing this series of Amendments formally, and having a full discussion on the Schedule. I do not know whether that course would commend itself to hon. Members.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: A large number of Amendments have appeared on the Paper and some of them will come in very late. This particular Schedule is of more importance than most hon. Members, I think, realise, and I want to ask whether when there are objections, there will be a public local inquiry.

The Chairman: The Parliamentary Secretary made a suggestion which, I hope, will commend itself to the Committee. It is that the discussion on the Schedule should take place when we come to the Schedule itself, and if the Committee are agreeable, that these particular Amendments be formally moved now, preparatory to the inclusion of the Schedule, at a later stage.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Will not that course mean that we agree to dispensing with a public inquiry in cases under this part of this Bill? If this Amendment is taken without any further discussion, then the provision in Sub-section (6) about holding a public local inquiry will be deleted from the Bill without any discussion or Debate at all, and it may or may not come in later on. Will not that be the effect?

The Chairman: No, I do not think so. It will be competent for the Committee, when it comes to the Schedule, to discuss that point.

Sir J. Mellor: As the purpose of these Amendments is to substitute discretionary inquiry for inquiry as of right, is not that a question of major principle which should be discussed on the Clause, rather than on the Schedule?

The Chairman: I do not think it would be competent to discuss at this stage what the Committee may or may not do on the Schedule.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Arising out of what has just been said, I do not see how, if some of us object to some of the provisions in this series of measures, if we let them pass formally now, we are to register our vote. Are we to discuss points or vote on the Schedule?

The Chairman: There is, of course, nothing in the least to prevent the Committee amending the Schedule when we come to it, or voting against it in toto.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 11, leave out from beginning to "in," in line 20, and insert:
(6) Subject to the provisions of the said Schedule in a case in which those provisions have effect in relation to the application, the Minister may make an order."—[Mr. H. Strauss.]

Mr. Manning;ham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, after "report," to insert "which shall be published."
The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that the person concerned will have an opportunitiy of knowing the views of the person who has made the report. One of the difficulties in the past has been that when there has been a public inquiry no one has known what report has been made, and the result has been that the objector has gone away with a considerable feeling of dissatisfaction on many occasions.
It does seem to me that, if the objector was told the reasons why his objection had not been sustained, he would, at least, be satisfied to some extent or other. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the report, the Minister will be able, no doubt, to justify his actions. But, in the case of inquiries, it would not be uncommon perhaps to find a person who had gone to considerable trouble in attending the public inquiry and putting forward his case—a case which did not appear to be answered at all at the inquiry—and who would find that all his efforts were entirely fruitless, that the order had been made and he had never been told and could not understand why it had been done.

Major Lloyd: I wish to support the argument put by my hon. Friend. This is one of many Amendments prepared with the object of protecting the individual who is planned for, against the bureaucrats who plan, and the case for it has been so well put that it does not seem necessary for me to say any more.

Viscountess Astor: Could I ask my hon. and gallant Friend what he means by "bureaucrats who plan"? It is the democrats who plan.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): No doubt, when there is a provision for an inquiry, or a tribunal or inquiries of any kind, it is always a question of legitimate discussion whether it is desirable that the report or evidence should be published or not. You can always understand people who say that publicity is quite a good thing. But there are circumstances, and we suggest to the Committee that this is one of them, in which the purpose of the inquiry would, to a large extent, be defeated or, anyhow, not furthered, if you insisted on publicity. The object of this inquiry is that the facts may be ascertained, that people may put their case and that the Minister may be advised. I think it is the general experience of everybody, that, if you want good advice you will not get it if you tell the person advising you, that it must all be published in the newspapers.

Mr. Pickthorn: Like the Privy Council?

The Attorney-General: The Privy Council, as a lawyer's point, is a bad one. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend cannot even think of the answer to his own question. I will tell him. The opinions of the Privy Council are final decisions of a tribunal and are really judgments, and, of course, have to be published. In this case, I quite agree that people may take different views. It was very exhaustively discussed on the Planning Act of 1932, and I think the reports on interim development orders have never been published and that reports under the Housing Act, to which my hon. Friend referred, have never been published. I believe the general opinion, and certainly the opinion of all those who have to work this type of machine, is that, if you insist on publicity, you will really defeat the purpose and object of the report, or, possibly, you will find that the report is made in such a watery way because it might put a Minister, or someone else, in a difficulty, and its purpose be undermined. For those reasons, although there is always scope for argument into that kind of question, we advise the Committee to follow what is in the Bill and not to insist on publication of these reports.

Mr. Pickthorn: My right hon. and learned Friend relies on the precedent of the Housing Act, and, if I may coin a phrase, that is a lawyer's point and not a very good one.

3.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General: That is stealing a phrase.

Mr. Pickthorn: It has been argued more than once from time to time across the Floor of this House, and particularly by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), who I am sorry is not in his place, because he is much more expert than I, and I should like to be corrected if I am misleading the Committee—the argument has been used, against requests for inquiries, that tiresome people, if they have the opportunty, ask for an inquiry, but the result of the inquiry always is that the local authority is authorised to do what it had wished to do. That argument has been used frequently in this House in connection with the Housing Act, to which the Attorney-General referred. If that argument is to continue to be made, it seems to me important that the public and the House should be able to judge whether the reason why the result of the inquiry and its advice are always on one side is because, in fact, the persons asking for the inquiry are always in the wrong, or whether it is for some other reason. Unless there is to be publication of the results of these inquiries, I do not see how the House, or the public, or anyone else, can ever be satisfied upon that question.

Mr. Woodburn: rose—

The Chairman: I have to withdraw this Amendment from the Committee, because I had not observed that the Committee, on a previous Amendment, had ruled all these words out.

Mr. Pickthorn: May I make that small joke over again?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: It was because I thought that, Major Milner, that I raised the point of Order with you in regard to the Minister's previous Amendment, and I understood that it was this Amendment which was called.

The Chairman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I did not take notice at the time.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 3, line 21, to leave out from the first "any," to the end of the Subsection, and to insert:
modification except (unless all persons interested consent) a modification extending the order to any land not thereby designated.


I do not think this Amendment is affected by any other Amendment. I would like the Committee to consider the effect of the last few words of this Subsection. As I understand the Sub-section, it gives the Minister power, when making his order, to modify the applications submitted to him
whether excluding any of the land thereby, designated or including land not thereby designated.
That means to say, as I understand it, that the Minister can add to the land without the owners of the land knowing anything from the local "Gazette" about his intentions to do so, without the service of any notice from him in the Minister's discretion and without him having any say in the matter at all. It seems to me a particularly curious wording, because, later in the Bill, when one comes to acquisition and compulsory purchase orders, one finds that land cannot be added unless all persons concerned consent. It does seem that the words in this Sub-section should be similar to the words in the First Schedule, Part I, paragraph, (4), which are the words of the Amendment which I have moved.

Mr. H. Strauss: Considering the number of occasions on which it has been, and perhaps will be, my duty to oppose my hon. Friend, I am glad on this occasion to say that in the opinion of the Government, what he says has substance and the Government accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 3, line 42, to leave out from "on," to "and," in line 44, and to insert:
any person who has duly made an objection to the application and at the time of making it or thereafter has sent to the authority a request in writing to serve him with the notice required by this Sub-section specifying an address for service.
This provides for service of notice on the making of the Order on objectors to appear at the public inquiry. Under the new procedure which I later propose, a public inquiry is not necessarily held in every case and inquiry will commonly be held into applications covered by the words in Clause 1. The Amendment, therefore, provides that notice of the nature of the Order has to be given to any objector who has asked for it and notified the address to which it can be sent. If a

person considers himself to be sufficiently affected by subsequent proceedings and sends the authority his name and address he should be given notice of subsequent steps.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 46, at end, add:
(11) Where an authority who have made an application for an order under this Section are required by virtue of Sub-section (8) or (10) of this Section to publish any notice, they shall serve the notice on any owner of any of the land designated by the application who at any time after the publication of the notice of the application has sent to the authority a request in writing that he should be so served specifying an address for service."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Keeling;: I want to ask the Government what their intentions are regarding the National Trust lands. I do so at the request of the National Trust Council, of which I am a member. I beg the Government to give an assurance that they will not allow local authorities to acquire land and buildings held inalienably by the Trust. Not all land and buildings held by the National Trust are inalienable. In order to make them inalienable they have either to have been so declared in the original National Trust Act, 1907, or to have been subsequently acquired and declared inalienable by Resolution of the National Trust Council. I can give an assurance that the Council does not lightly exercise its power to declare land and buildings in its possession inalienable. It only exercises that power when the land or buildings are of exceptional beauty or historic interest. I therefore ask confidently that the Government will give an assurance that they will not allow the Trust's inalienable land and buildings to pass out of its hands.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have been asked by my hon. Friend about properties of the National Trust. Parliament has recognised in many Statutes the special position of the National Trust and the great benefit which the public derives from the fact that properties are held inalienably by it. It would clearly be contrary to the wishes of Parliament and to the intentions of the donors if such properties were taken from the Trust, except in the case of an over-


riding national requirement. I attach the greatest importance to the work of the National Trust and no Minister of Town and Country Planning would lightly sanction the acquisition of such properties whatever his powers might be and he would certainly never do so without the fullest consultation with it.

Mr. Nunn: I want to raise a point which has some substance. It is the question of the interpretation of the phrase "sustained war damage." It appears that the Minister has to be satisfied that the area has "sustained war damage" and, later on, it says that an area on which the Minister has been so satisfied, has to be referred to as an area of "extensive war damage." But the mere fact that it is so referred to, does not make it extensive. There is some weakness involved here. If I may give an illustration, which is perhaps a trifle frivolous, it will allow the Committee to see the point more clearly. If the Minister were called upon to declare that an animal was in a field, and a rabbit were shown to him, that would be an animal in the field. In the last three lines on the first page of the Bill the Minister is entitled to describe that rabbit as an elephant, but it still remains a rabbit.

The Attorney-General: While leaving these biological analyses, may I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the first three lines of the Clause? I think they remove the objection, although I appreciate what he says. It says that the Minister has to be satisfied
that it is requisite, for the purpose of dealing satisfactorily with extensive war damage …, that a part or parts of their area
are to be replanned. It would not therefore be sufficient that in an area you found one house had suffered damage and that it was desirable to replan. You have to be satisfied that the making of the Order is requisite for the purpose of dealing satisfactorily with extensive war damage. If you bear that in mind then for that purpose it has been shown that it has sustained war damage and you describe it as an area with extensive war damage. I think they fit together. Some people might say that we should put in "extensive" before "war damage" in line 14 but it would be unnecessary, and the purposes and conditions as to which the

Minister has to be satisfied are really quite made out.

Captain Strickland: I wish to raise a point, which is not very important but which has an importance, with regard to the taking over of land attached to the National Trust. The Minister said that no Minister would take over the land unless it was of overriding national importance. Does the greater include the less, and if it is of great local importance that a part of the land of the National Trust should come within the local scheme, will such local needs be regarded as of great national importance?

Brig;.-General Clifton Brown: I would like to know how this Clause will affect the already existing country planning schemes under the Act. Does it mean that in respect of schemes under which we have been able to put cottages in one place and agricultural buildings in another, no Committee will abolish the security we have, or will such schemes still be considered as existing and come under the Bill as agreed planning schemes?

3.30 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Before we pass Clause 1, I must say that I do not like the period of time in which applications can be made. We have had an assurance from the Minister that this will be re-examined by him and I do not want in any way to put into his mouth words which he does not wish to express, but my support of this Clause is entirely subject to whether we can get over that point. This is exceptional machinery which gives vast new powers and hon. Members of this Committee should definitely ask themselves whether they are willing to pass such powers. I do most earnestly ask the Minister to realise that the reason for passing these powers under Clause 1 is because of the urgency of the question and not necessarily because they may justify themselves as the normal procedure, under which this legislation should operate. Therefore, although I shall support Clause 1, it is with the proviso that I sincerely hope something will be inserted in the Bill on the Report stage to meet the case that has been made.

Mr. Morrison: In reply to the questions that have been asked, I should like to say to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) that I meant what I said, namely, that no


Minister of Town and Country Planning would lightly sanction the acquisition of such properties, whatever his powers might be, without an overriding national purpose to be served

Captain Strickland: Could I interrupt the Minister? Is that the complete answer—that it must be of national importance, and that National Trust land is sacrosanct from any planning which may be required for the development of a city's plans?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think we can carry this any further without a specific case in view. We cannot discuss it in the abstract. What I mean is that it would have to be a purpose of national importance which would make me, speaking for myself, sanction any application to acquire such land. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Clifton Brown) asked what effect Clause 1 has upon planning schemes already made. The Clause by itself has no effect at all, it merely enables an area to be designated as subject to compulsory purchase. At a later stage in the Bill we deal with powers to vary the existing schemes, where their variation has become necessary owing to war damage or other causes, and we can deal with that point when we reach it. I noted what the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) said and of course he will recognise—and I think the Committee recognise—that our sole purpose in bringing this Bill forward is to deal with an urgent national situation, namely, the restoration of our former cities.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 2.—(Power to purchase land in areas of extensive war damage or needed for replacements: authorisation under special procedure.)

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, to leave out "replacements," and to insert:
re-location of population or industry or for replacement of open space.
This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move, in page 4, line 12, to leave out from "order," to

"him," in line 13, and to insert "submitted to the Minister and made by."
I apologise to the Committee if I have misunderstood this, but on the face of it, there seems to be something wrong with the drafting. If I may, I will read the words of the Clause that seem to me relevant to the point. It provides that:
… a local planning authority may be authorised … to purchase compulsorily. …
by an order made and submitted to the Minister—presumably made by the planning authority but, subject to correction, I should have thought that nobody but the Minister would make the order, and that either my Amendment or something with a similar intention is necessary at this point.

The Attorney-General: In this we are following the terminology to be found in the Local Government Act, 1933, which is generally applicable to such a case, that is to say, the local authority would draw up the instrument which does not become effective until it has had the sanction of the Minister. I can quite see the arguments that could be put forward for the terminology which my hon. Friend thinks would be more appropriate, but I do not think there is anything wrong with the terminology which we have used. The order is made by the local authority though it requires confirmation by a higher authority, and I think that is a perfectly natural use of the English language. I think it would, in any event, cause confusion to lawyers if we adopted in this Bill a different phraseology from that used in the past for an exactly similar state of affairs. I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied with that, but if he is not, I would recommend the Committee to leave the Clause as it is.

Mr. Cocks: In other words, the Attorney-General says that the argument of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) is a donnish point.
Amendment negatived.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): May I suggest that, in moving his Amendment, the hon. Member for West Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Nunn) also deals with the point raised by his other Amendment to line 37, namely, to leave out "or under Subsection (2) of this Section"

Mr. Nunn: I beg to move, in page 4, line 15, leave out Sub-section (2).
My second Amendment is consequential. My reason in bringing forward this Amendment is to try to secure what is the main object of the Bill, namely, that there shall be speed in operation, and also that the planning shall be complete. We have machinery under Clause 1 which should cover all that is necessary, and under Sub-section (2) it seems it must inevitably happen that a good deal of piecemeal and haphazard work must be done, that hurried planning will take place, that afterwards a good deal of that planning will have to be changed, and that, in the end, the effective planning will be delayed. It will be Observed that this Sub-section says that this particularly quick action may be taken whatever may be decided as to the manner in which the land is to be laid out. It is quite obviously foreseen that the plans may not be at all full when this application is made to the Minister. Speed, in my opinion, and in the opinion of very many Members of the Committee, is necessary, although I must confess that yesterday a number of hon. Members, especially on the other side, seemed to be arguing in favour of having rather lengthy proceedings.
However, leaving that point, if speed is necessary it seems to be desirable that we should not do anything which would make it necessary for planning authorities to go back on their first decision in order to make up their minds as to what they want to do with the land when they have it. There is another point. The Minister is required to be satisfied that the land acquired by an authority will be required for dealing satisfactorily with the damage. It appears that in spite of this being a very quick method it is necessary to go to the Minister. If it is to go to the Minister under Clause 1, I would like to know what procedure he will adopt under this Sub-section. What are the inquiries he will have to make? If they are the same as under Clause 1 there does not seem any necessity for this Sub-section.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment, because I think that in the opening stages, especially, of our post-war task of reconstruction the powers asked for will be abundantly justified and necessary. There are areas in our bombed cities

where there could be no conceivable question that the land must be publicly owned if the work of re-housing and re-establishing our people is to proceed at the earliest possible moment. It is in respect of these areas only that the exceptional powers are required. In general, this power will be used in the early days of reconstruction. There are many areas, especially in the East End of London, where there are at present no dwelling houses that are habitable, or very few which have miraculously escaped damage, and where the rest of the land is encumbered by piles of rubble, where operations cannot start until power to enter upon the land has been granted. By the words of the Subsection the Minister is strictly enjoined to have regard to a number of very stringent considerations before he uses this power, which, I beg my hon. Friend to believe, is abundantly necessary. As to the inquiries which the Minister will make, they will be only such as will enable him to discharge a public duty in certifying that the land is of such a character and that there is no question about it being publicly acquired.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: This applies to proceedings of acquisition under Part 1 of the First Schedule, and this procedure will mean that a planning authority starts off with an immediate order which has to be confirmed by the Minister who will, at the same time, consider objections. In the First Schedule it states that these three steps can be taken at the same time. That is a very dangerous proceeding. How can all these steps take place at the same time? How can there be any time for objections? Perhaps the matter can be more fully discussed when we come to the Schedules.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In view of what the Minister has said, I would be glad if he could say something on why this accelerated procedure is to be allowed to remain in existence for five years from the commencement of the Act.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the question of five years comes in on a later Amendment.

Mr. Morrison: I think it would help my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) if I said a word on this matter. It is true that we could discuss it more fully when we come to the Schedules, but its purpose


is that if you are to ask for a Clause 1 declaration—which you do not ask for if you are to apply Sub-section (2)—you can make application for a purchase order under Clause 1.
Amendment negatived.
3.45 P.m.
Amendment made: In page 4, line 27, leave out "within," and insert "before the expiration of."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Sir J. Mellor: I beg to move, in page 4, line 27, leave out "five", and to insert "two."
We had a long discussion yesterday on Clause 1 on a rather similar Amendment designed to reduce from five years to two the period during which a planning authority might make application for an order under Clause 1, and, therefore, I do not think I need develop the argument again at any length. I would only say that in this case, under Clause 2, I think the argument is even greater for a reduction from five years to two than it was under Clause 1, because the whole object of the procedure in Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 is speed. It is specially expedited procedure in very special circumstances. In those circumstances the claim which we make, that the period within which an order authorising compulsory purchase can be submitted to the Minister, should be reduced from five years to two from the commencement of the Act, is one which I hope the Minister will meet.

Mr. George Griffiths: On a point of Order. Did we not debate the question of five years or two years yesterday?

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, but not on this Clause. It involves a separate point here.

Commander Galbraith: I support the Amendment, and I base my argument on the Minister's words in defending the retention of the Clause. He said it was intended as an assurance that it would be used at an early stage when the public interest would be threatened by delay. Hon. Members opposite have said there does not seem to be any need for this long period of five years. It is for that reason that I submit we should accept the Amendment.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am impressed by the force of the argument which both

my hon. Friends have made that I stated that the intention is to use these exceptional powers in the early years of reconstruction. If the thing is urgent and it is clear that the land ought to be acquired, it is in the early stages that that would be most readily ascertainable, but if I accepted the Amendment now I might, before the Bill emerges from Committee, find that the powers for which I have asked for expediting public inquiries and other phases in the procedure had disappeared and gone away, and I should be left without any power to fall back on this Clause in a clear and obvious case. If the suggestion that I am making later on for expediting the procedure of public inquiry and hearing, and various other matters of that sort, is acceded to, and if I emerge with the power of acquiring these bombed sites accelerated to the extent that I may think necessary relatively intact, I should be prepared to direct the attention of local authorities to this urgent procedure provided by Sub-section (2) to be used in the first two years. I think that is fair because, if I have the accelerated procedure with regard to public inquiries and other matters, the fact that in the third and fourth years that procedure would have to be resorted to would not be such a bar to them, but until I have it I cannot give up the five year procedure for urgent cases. I think that is a reasonable attitude for the Minister charged with this responsibility and, if my hon. Friend will take that into account and withdraw his Amendment, I undertake, if I emerge from the Committee stage with the powers that I am asking for accelerated procedure and public inquiry, I will introduce on Report an Amendment giving effect to the shorter time.

Mr. Woodburn: I hope the Minister will be careful about this because no one knows the circumstances in which the war will end. Local authorities are working with very amateur staffs—some are really working with school girls—and it may be that some of their normal expert staffs will never come back at all. In the building up of new staffs to deal with much of the complicated work that will come after the war it may be that six or seven months or more will be occupied getting their own shop in order to get on with their job. If the Minister allows this to be cut down,


he may find himself eventually without the powers to do the very job that it is wanted for. Further, it is in great areas, where the job is enormous, that two years might be too short a period. It looks a long time but, when you are starting to get things into order after a war, time flies very quickly and, if too many precautions are put in and more and more delays are going to be imposed, it may render the whole Bill null and void.

Sir Harold Webbe: I do not want to press the Minister to accept the Amendment—on the contrary I think it would be a mistake to accept it—but the case that he made puzzled me somewhat because I had seen in the Clause a purpose to which he did not allude at all. I felt very much for those who pleaded yesterday for a shorter period of uncertainty, within which authorities might be expected to make their plans. I was glad the Minister agreed to reconsider that and to try to devise some method of bringing pressure to bear on authorities to reach finality at the earliest moment. As I see it, the provisions of this Sub-section must run for the same period as those for the preparation and the making of an order under Clause 1. I had imagined that the Sub-section was designed to meet the kind of case where an authority is engaged in preparing for submission under Clause 1 a plan for the redevelopment of an extensive area and perhaps before the plan can be submitted an opportunity might occur for the acquisition of some piece of property within the area which quite clearly would be required in any replanning and, unless they took advantage of that opportunity—the falling in of a lease or something of that kind—the public interest might be damaged. If it is intended to meet that purpose, it seems to me that the power must rest with the authorities for the whole time that they are allowed to occupy in preparing the plan.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am puzzled by the Minister's observations. As I understand it there can be no public inquiry when the procedure under Clause 2 is being used, and I do not quite see the force of his argument that he cannot cut down the period unless he gets his way with regard to the public inquiry under the new Schedule. It seems to me that the question of a public inquiry does not

affect the question of time. Within two years every application, and every order on that application, should be made. I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether these two matters are not really disconnected and whether he cannot accept the Amendment.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Morrison: It is impossible, by making an artificial and illogical distinction, to separate the two methods of procedure. The whole question of procedure hangs together. That is to say, it is to the extent that I can succeed, with the consent of the Committee, in simplifying and expediting the other methods of procedure, that I am prepared to abandon these exceptional powers. The two things hang together and I cannot separate them artificially.

Mr. Woodburn: What is the disadvantage of having five years?

Mr. Morrison: Assuming we have the expedited period for the normal circumstance, it is better, if the circumstances justify it, that a project for redevelopment should pass through the mind of the local authorities concerned. If we get the procedure simplified, there will not be so much necessity for that period.
Amendment negatived.
Further Amendments made:
In page 4, line 27, leave out "commencement of this Act," and insert:
date appointed under Sub-section (1) of the preceding Section.
In line 33, leave out "replacements," and insert:
re-location of population or industry or for replacement of open space."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Lieut.-Colonel DOWER:

In page 4, line 38, leave out from "of," to "if," in line 39, and insert:
one year after the date of the order under Section one or three years after the commencement of this Act whichever is the earlier.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I have handed in a manuscript Amendment which I desire to move, as follows: In page 4, line 38, leave out from "of" to "if" in line 39, and insert: "one year after the date of an order under Section one."


That is the same as the Amendment on the Paper except for the last words.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member has handed in a manuscript Amendment in different terms and he must move that. Perhaps he will read out the Amendment he wishes to move.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: The Amendment I have read is the one I desire to move.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Amend-which the hon. and gallant Member handed in goes beyond that.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I went to the Chair to correct the Amendment I handed in, and you, Mr. Williams, said that you had not got it.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have got it now and the hon. and gallant Member can move only that Amendment. He cannot move an abbreviated edition of it. He either moves the Amendment as he handed it to me, or he cannot move it at all.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I hope that on future occasions when I go to the Chair I shall be given more opportunity to alter an Amendment than I have been given on this occasion. I propose to move the Amendment as handed in, that is, to leave out from "of" to "if" in line 39 and to insert:
one year after the date of the order under section one, or after such date as the Minister may appoint as being the date when the making of such application has been made.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not the Amendment which the hon. and gallant Gentleman handed in. He really must stick to his Amendment; otherwise, I must pass on to another Amendment. Perhaps I had better read it out. It is, in page 4, line 38, to leave out from "of" to "if" in line 39, and to insert:
one year after the date of an order under section one or three years after such date as the Minister may by order appoint as the date when the making of an application under section one has become practicable.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I beg to move, in page 4, line 38, to leave out from "of" to "if", in line 39, and to insert:
one year after the date of an order under Section one or three years after such date as the Minister may by order appoint as the date when the making of an application under Section one has become practicable.

The object of this Amendment—

Viscountess Astor: Is delay.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: That is just what it is not. The object of the Amendment is to stop delay. Perhaps the Noble Lady will pay a little more attention and be a little less critical. An Order may declare that the land is subject to purchase, but it is not obligatory in any way. That places the person concerned in an unfortunate position. Five years, if that remains the period in which an application can be made, might go by without any safeguards about anything being done with regard to the land. The owner will not know whether it is to be purchased, and he will not be able to do anything with it. The land will be stabilised, and I suggest that this is too long a period in which he should be kept in suspense. The object of the Amendment is to shorten the period so as to bring it down to 12 months in which the planning authority must say definitely whether they are going to acquire the land.

Major Lloyd: I have listened carefully to my hon. and gallant Friend, and I cannot see any difference between his Amendment and the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller)—in page 4, line 38, leave out from "of," to "if," in line 39, and insert: "one year from the date of the making of such order." Everything that he said is what we would have said had we been able to speak to that Amendment.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I must confess to a little bewilderment as to the precise terms which my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment now assumes.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: The right hon. Gentleman is really very largely the cause of it, because of the uncertainty of the period.

Mr. Morrison: The Bill contains a provision for the limitation of these powers which, in contrast to the recent speech of my hon. and gallant Friend, is both clear and convincing. It makes the period run for five years. I did gather that my hon. and gallant Friend thinks that is too long and that he wants it to run for one year from the date of the


Order. I think that would be too short. It is really a point that we have discussed in the Committee time and time again. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not ask me to accept an Amendment with the terms of which I am not properly acquainted yet, and the effect of which would be to render the period in which the local authority would have to execute its task too short.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: It may be convenient to discuss the Amendment, with the terms of which I am not fully familiar, by referring to the one upon the Order Paper in my name, to which reference has already been made.

The Deputy-Chairman: That Amendment has not been selected, and so we cannot discuss it.

Mr. Manning;ham-Buller: I would like to draw attention on that Amendment to a defect in the Bill. If, towards the end of the five year period—

The Deputy-Chairman: No, I am sorry, but we cannot discuss the Amendment. The matter can be raised on the question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manning;ham-Buller: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Williams, but I want to make it clear what I was proposing to do. The reason why I am supporting the spirit of the Amendment is because of the illogicality which the Bill assumes in its present form. If application is made at the end of the five years under the Bill in its present form, the owner can give notice to acquire straight away. That seems to me to be wrong.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment made:
In page 4, line 39, leave out "commencement of this Act," and insert:
date appointed under Sub-section (1) of the preceding Section.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 4, line 41, to leave out:
authority on whose application the order was made,
and insert:
local planning authority in whose area the land is situated.
Under the Bill as drafted, an owner, if he wishes to exercise his right or requir

ing that his property should be purchased at once, must give notice to the authority on whose application the order was made, that is to say, to the authority who applied for an order under Clause 1, or the authority who apply for the purchase order. Under the Bill as drafted, an application for a Clause 1 order might, in some cases, be made not by the local planning authority in whose area the land is situated, but by a joint body or by any one of a number of authorities. In those circumstances it was felt to be a little unreasonable to place upon the owner the task of finding out which authority, among all the possible ones, was the proper one to whom he should apply. Therefore, the Amendment provides that the owner should send the notice to the local planning authority in whose area the land is situated, even though that is not the proper authority. Other Amendments will also deal with this matter, and the effect will be that the notice will eventually reach the proper authority.
Amendment agreed to.

4.15 P.m.

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 5, leave out lines 9 to 23.
The lines form part of Sub-section (4), which gives the right to any owner of property which has been included under the Clause 1 procedure for Compulsory Purchase Order, where the property has not actually been acquired by the local authority, to apply that it should, after the expiration of five years, be excluded from the area; provided that when it has not sustained war damage or has sustained such damage but has been rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use, the Minister shall be able, on the application to extend the period, to tell him to come back later on with another application. I do not know why the Minister requires this power of extending the period to five years, and so sterilising the use of the land for that period, if it has not sustained war damage or has been rendered capable of beneficial use. It seems that it would have the effect that anyone with a damaged property would not make any attempt to put it into a condition in which it could be beneficially used.

Major Studholme: I support the Amendment. I, too, am not clear on the object of the proviso. It seems that it will have just the effect which


my hon. and gallant Friend has suggested and probably will discourage owners from putting their property into reasonable repair because of uncertainty as to the future. There will be a great housing shortage and it seems most important that all owners should be encouraged to put their property into order as soon as possible. The uncertainty is a very disturbing element.

Mr. Silkin: I hope that the Minister will not accept the Amendment. The proviso is very necessary for local authorities. My right hon. Friend has to appreciate the conditions which may still prevail at the expiration of five years. There will still be, in the case of many authorities, an enormous amount of land in respect of which an Order has been made but which it has not yet been possible for the local authority actually to acquire. Certainly that will be the case in London. I hesitate to venture a figure of the number of acquisitions, but it will certainly run into five figures. At the end of the five years it may still be that, although an Order has been made by my right hon. Friend, and therefore he has been satisfied that an acquisition ought to take place, it has not been possible for the local authority to carry out the acquisition. In such a case the owner, under Sub-section (4), serves notice calling upon the local authority to do something. It ought to be open to the local authority to come before the Minister and say "We are very sorry; we want the land, we intend to acquire it, but for very good reasons we have not been able to do so." Then, if they make a good case, the Minister ought to be in a position to cancel the notice served by the owners. This is an essential feature, and I hope that the Minister will not accept the Amendment.

Earl Winterton: I agree with the Bill in this respect. I think that my hon. and gallant Friends opposite are unduly apprehensive. I do not see why this should prevent the owner from putting his property into good order, as it is most important he should do, in view of the lack of houses. He will get good compensation. There is no reason to think that anyone will be discouraged from putting property into order because it may be taken over by the local authority; in fact, it operates rather the other way, and people put their property into order if they think it

is going to be taken over by the local authority, in order that they may get a good price for it. I think that what my hon. Friend has said, speaking from good knowledge of the subject, is quite correct.

The Solicitor-General: I think that when the Committee have examined once again the conditions under which this Clause operates, they will reject the Amendment. We are considering the position as it appears from the words:
in which the land in question either has not sustained war damage or has sustained such damage but has been rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use.
That means, when the owner is able, without injury, to continue in the use of his property for the time being, but, being able to continue in the use of his property, he still decides to call on the local planning authority to purchase the property, so that he can reinstate himself in other premises as soon as possible. That means that the authority might well be in the position of not being able to obtain a new tenant for the short term before the redevelopment takes place, and they are left with empty property on their hands if they are not to meet claims for disturbance prematurely. In these circumstances, it is obvious that in certain cases hardship is going to fall on the local authority, and all that the present wording of the Act calls for is for the Minister to have discretion in these circumstances, and in that class of case, to allow the property to remain subject to compulsory acquisition.

Earl Winterton: That hardship will not fall upon anybody, because in the next five years there will not be enough houses for people to live in, because of the bad housing policy of the Government.

The Solicitor-General: I am indebted to my right hon. Friend, but all we are concerned with here is to leave the Minister in a position to preserve justice and equity between the parties. The Minister must grant a hearing in the matter if the local planning authorities so desire, so as to allow every opportunity for each point of view to be put before him. I ask the Committee to be satisfied with that reasonable provision.

Mr. Manning;ham-Buller: Why is the proviso limited so as to exclude land which has sustained war damage and to which nothing has been done?

The Solicitor-General: I think my hon. Friend will find that that point is dealt with when we reach Clause 27, which I hope will be in a very short time.

Commander Galbraith: In view of the explanation given by the Solicitor-General, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: In page 5, line 27, at end, insert:
() "An authority shall comply with any requirements of the Minister as to notification to other authorities concerned of the receipt by the authority of notices under Sub-section (4) of this Section or of the giving by them of directions under the last preceding Subsection."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 5, line 28, to leave out Sub-section (6).
I rise with the greater confidence seeing that I am supported by a number of my hon. Friends who have not on all occasions supported the views I was putting forward This Sub-section now becomes inappropriate, because its purpose was to relieve the Minister of an obligation to hold a local inquiry in certain circumstances, and now, under the Amendments which we will move dealing with Schedules to this Bill, the Minister will be relieved in every case of that absolute obligation. This Sub-section accordingly becomes unnecessary, and indeed, inappropriate, for it will be noticed that it deals with matters which are
submitted to him in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act,
and in due course we propose to abolish "the Second Schedule to this Act."

Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend will always find support from his hon. Friends behind him whenever he wants to omit any part of this Bill The more he omits, the more support he will get. But I doubt whether my hon. Friend has accurately explained the purpose of this Sub-section. As I read it, it meant that, normally, the local authority, in submitting an application to the Minister, would also include land required for replacement; but there were cases where it might turn out that land which had not been included in the original application was required for replacement. It might be that, when the local authority came to examine the redevelopment of the area more closely, they

found that they needed other land than that which they had originally applied for. I thought that this Sub-section gave them two years to find out whether they required such land. With this Sub-section omitted, once a local authority has made its original application, there will be no power to ask for an Order for other land which they might subsequently find that they needed. I hope that my hon. Friend will think again. I admit that this Subsection will need amendment in the light of other Amendments to be made in respect of the procedure, and that the words "the Second Schedule to this Act" will be inappropriate. But the substance of the Sub-section will still remain necessary, and, if this power is not conferred on local authorities subsequently to acquire land for replacement purposes, it will be necessary to put right that provision.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I think we are entitled to have an explanation. To delete a lengthy Clause such as this without explanation does not satisfy this side of the Committee, and when we see the proposal supported by a long list of hon. Members, a number of whom are not favourable to the Bill, it rather makes us suspicious. Before the Minister gets agreement from this side, we would like a much fuller explanation as to the real cause.

Mr. Strauss: I am sorry if I was perfunctory, and I am still more sorry if the support of my hon. Friends should have led to any doubt as to the merit of this Amendment.

Mr. G. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman was delighted with it and it made us suspicious.

Mr. Strauss: It is always a pleasure to find myself supported by hon. Members in various parts of the Committee with whom, on other occasions, I have found it my duty to differ. I think the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) is in agreement that this Sub-section, as it stands, has now become entirely inappropriate, because its main object—I say its main object—is to relieve the Minister from the obligation, in certain cases, to hold local inquiries. The Minister is relieved, under other provisions which we are moving, of that obligation in all cases, and therefore this becomes inappropriate.


But the hon. Member for Peckham thinks there are other matters which are affected by this Sub-section. I am advised—I hope I have understood his point correctly—that this is not so, and that there will be all the powers for which he asked under other provisions of the Bill, I will undertake that if the Sub-section does more than I have described, I will look into it and see if an addition is required in another place. It is quite certain that this Sub-section has now become inappropriate.

Mr. Silkin: This Sub-section does two things. I agree that it does deal with the question of a public inquiry, but it also says to the local authority: "You have asked for certain additional land for replacement in your original application. Perhaps you will find, in two years' time, that you have not asked for enough or that circumstances have changed and you want additional land." This Sub-section gives the local authority the right, within two years, to go back and ask for additional land for replacement. It is that power which my hon. Friend is deleting when he deletes the Sub-section, and that probably explains why he has had so much support from his hon. Friends behind him; but this power is of vital importance to local authorities. Otherwise, they will ask for much more land than they really need. The tendency will be to ask for far more land than they need in order to obviate the possibility of making a mistake. I hope my hon. Friend will see this point and restore the power to the local authorities.

Mr. Pickthorn: I think the last argument from the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), for whom I have the greatest respect, takes us a great deal too far. It has been said that those of us who are particularly anxious that no private citizen shall have his legal rights interfered with without proper notice and inquiry are to be regarded with suspicion in this matter. I think that that accusation is unfair and really irrelevant, and that it might now be dropped. The hon. Gentleman opposite, however, in his last sentence went a long way to justify any section of this Committee who may be actuated by such motives, because he has told us that, if this Sub-section is dropped, local authorities will, as a matter of course—I think it is within the recollection of the Committee, but I am ready to stand by

HANSARD—yield to the temptation to budget very loosely and to ask for compulsory powers for much more than they are likely to need. If that is one of the reasons which we are to get from the local authorities, then really the hon. Gentleman opposite is inviting criticism, suspicion and even obstruction.

Mr. Silkin: It does not rest with them.

Mr. Wilmot: We dealt with the principle involved in this matter on Clause 1, and the Minister agreed that it was desirable that he should have discretion in allowing the local authorities to amend the plans which, in the first place, they submitted, and which circumstances had shown to be inadequate. If the circumstances are such that it becomes necessary to amend the plan, and to acquire another strip of land, it should not be open to the landowner to stick up the scheme or that the Minister, within his discretion, should not allow it to be amended. We went over this and the Committee decided that amendment with the Minister's approval was desirable.

Mr. H. Strauss: I feel that hon. Members opposite are thinking that there will be a gap in the Bill if this Sub-section is omitted, but I do not believe there will. I believe my hon. Friends will find that, under the provisions of Clause 10, they will be able to deal with land which they think they would not be able to deal with if this Sub-section were omitted. Provisions dealing with local inquiries and the revision of the schedules are, as my hon. Friend knows, considered by the local authorities to be a great improvement in the Bill. I really believe that, if my hon. Friend will study the provisions fully, he will find that this Sub-section takes away no power from them at all. I shall be delighted, to consider his point, but what is quite certain is that the Subsection in its present form is quite inappropriate and I ask the Committee to agree to its deletion.

Mr. Silkin: Will my hon. Friend agree to look at this again, and, if he finds that this power is really necesary, will he put in another Sub-section?

Mr. Strauss: If it is necessary, and is not provided elsewhere in the Bill, I will certainly look into my hon. Friend's point.
Amendment agreed to.


Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 3.—(Power to purchase land for highways in connection with areas of extensive war damage: authorisation under special procedure with local inquiry.)

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 6, line 5, to leave out "replacements," and to insert:
re-location of population or industry or for replacement of open space.
This is consequential.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Wilmot: I beg to move, in page 6, line 16, at end, insert:
or for providing accommodation for persons displaced or to be displaced from land acquired or to be acquired for any of the purposes aforesaid.
This Clause deals with the provision of land for highway purposes, and, although later in the Bill an obligation is laid upon the authority, quite properly, to provide alternative accommodation for people displaced by the construction of these highways, there does not appear to be any power to acquire the necessary land to provide the accommodation, residential or business, for the people displaced. The purpose of the Amendment is to fill that gap and to enable the authority to acquire not only the land for the highway, but also the land for accommodating people who have been displaced.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I appreciate the object which the hon. Member has at heart in moving the Amendment, but I do not think that it is necessary or, indeed, desirable. My first reason is that the natural place for the alternative accommodation for persons displaced by highway construction would be on the frontage land of the new or widened highway, and the Clause as drafted enables the highway authority to acquire land for that purpose. The second reason is that, if we are to provide accommodation elsewhere, the right authority to apply to would seem to be the local planning authority and the natural place for that provision would be in the overspill area. I should like a matter of this sort to be done by the planning authorities. If people have to be moved off the frontage they ought to go into the overspill area,

and for that reason we ought to let the Bill stand as it is.
Amendment negatived.

Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, in page 6, line 16, at the end, to insert:
or for the purpose of giving in exchange for land forming part of any common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment required for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of this Section.
The position is that under Clause 12 a highway authority may have to provide accommodation and to acquire land. If the land is part of a common or an open space or an allotment they have to acquire Parliamentary powers to enable them to get the land unless they can give land to replace that which they are taking away. We want powers so that they may purchase extra land for the purpose of making replacements where necessary. If they do not have this power, the consequence may be one which, I am sure, every member of this Committee would not like—we may be reducing the amount of open space or common land or allotments.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I think that the whole Committee, irrespective of the side on which hon. Members sit, will agree that the purpose of the Amendment is a reasonable one. We want to give the power for which my hon. Friend is asking, but it may be necessary to frame his Amendment in a little wider terms. If he will withdraw the Amendment, I will undertake to consider it further and to put down an appropriate Amendment at a later stage.

Sir J. Lamb: I appreciate the circumstances, and I thank my right hon. Friend for accepting the principle of the Amendment, and I therefore ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.45 P.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move, in page 6, line 23, to leave out "be authorised."
My assumption was that this matter had been settled on Clause 2. I still think that the language I endeavoured to insert would really have been more accurate, both from the literary and legal points of view.

The Attorney-General: This is a slightly different point. I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's point of view, but we really put in this phrase, which might be thought a little clumsy, in order to save adding to the Schedule. All the working is based on normal procedure by which a local authority is authorised by the Minister, but in this case it is absurd to enable the Minister to authorise himself and bring in the same procedure, and in order to avoid adding a lot of words to the Schedule we use the words to which my hon. Friend objects. As to the Minister authorising himself, again I think one can say that it is ungrammatical or badly worded, but it does, what is always desirable, slightly simplify the Bill, and grammatical purity might lead to trouble in other directions.

Mr. Pickthorn: There is something more than grammatical purity; there is the question of essential illogicality, whether the Minister is to make Orders and, in other conditions, the local authorities are to make Orders, though they have no legal power to make Orders. And yet here we say that the Minister may be authorised. Whether it is grammatical, pernickety, or academic, we have been talking about the inalienable rights of the National Trust, but surely, the most inalienable right of all is the use of words to mean what they meant previously. There has been a sort of open conspiracy to make the words mean something different from what they really mean.

The Attorney-General: I do not agree.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 6, line 32, to leave out "Where", and to insert: "Except in a case in which."

Mr. Wilmot: On a point of Order, Mr. Williams, I understood you to say that you would call the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) and that of myself—in page 6, line 29, at end, insert:
or for providing accommodation for persons displaced or to be displaced from land acquired or to be acquired for any of the purposes aforesaid.

The Deputy-Chairman: No. That Amendment was practically the same as another Amendment, but if there is a point here the hon. Member can raise it on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Wilmot: I suggest, with respect, that it is a little different.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment has not been selected.

Mr. Morrison: The Amendment which I have just moved is really consequential and drafting.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 6, line 40, leave out from "1936," to the end of line 46.
In page 7, line 2, after "Act," insert "to be published."
In line 3, leave out "by Gazette and local advertisement."
In line 9, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 16.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Mr. Hugh Lawson: I beg to move, in page 71, line 29, leave out Sub-section (5).
My objection to Sub-section (5) is that it prevents a local authority from acquiring land for the purpose of controlling development alongside highways in cases where the owner of the land has entered, or is willing to enter, into agreements which are suitable for the purpose of controlling the development alongside the highway. What would be the effect of that? If a new highway is going to be made, the highway authority is only to be able to acquire the actual area of land on which the highway itself is to be made, and the land on either side will remain in the ownership of the previous owners. Now, though we agree that they will have to enter into restrictions in regard to development, surely that development may include buildings, either as an estate or laid out in factories. So it would seem to me that in the case of open country across which a new highway is made, while the highway authority can only buy the actual area of the highway, yet be cause the highway has been put there, the land on either side is developed and therefore increases in value, and the value which comes to that land as a result of the expenditure of public money, cannot in any way be offset against the public expenditure. Surely a highway authority should be empowered to buy land on each side of the highway?
Therefore I think that as this Subsection prevents that, it should be struck out. That is my main objection; there


is another slighter one. It refers to the owner who is willing, but what is going to happen in the case of an owner who maintains that he is willing at the beginning but later on is not so willing, and, in fact, does not enter into an agreement? It means that then an order has to be made, and that would lead to quite a lot of delay. Finally, this Sub-section reveals a big difference of attitude towards the ownership of land. Some people regard the public ownership of land as a necessary evil which should only be undertaken under very extreme and special circumstances. On the other hand, I regard the public ownership of land as something desirable, a practice which should be extended, and therefore in any matter of doubt I think the doubt should be given to the public and not to private interests. This Sub-section gives the doubt to private interests, and I think it should be struck out.

Mr. Quintin Hoĥg: Perhaps before nay right hon. Friend replies, he would be prepared to defend this Clause against the charge of extreme illiteracy. What does it mean? Let us look at the word "he" in line 32. To which gentleman does it refer—to the right hon. Gentleman himself or the Minister of War Transport? Does it mean the one or the other as the case may be? How can a court construe a Clause which is drafted like this? Supposing it means the Minister of War Transport, how can he both propose to make an order and yet not make one? Is it to be supposed that he enters into a soliloquy with himself? The truth of the matter is that the Attorney-General has been defending illiteracy after illiteracy in this Bill, on the ground that it really is too much trouble to put it right. I think that for the sake of clarity it would be very much better if they got somebody to draw up this Bill who understood the English language. The English language is a very beautiful possession, and I do not see why we should be given a jumble of meaningless phrases simply because some other illiterate draftsman in the past has done exactly the same thing before.

Mr. Moelwyn Hug;hes: I desire to support the rejection of this Sub-section, not only on grounds of policy and unintelligibility, but because the Subsection makes nonsense of a large part

of Sub-section (1) of the same Clause. Sub-section (1) deals with the condition that the construction or improvement of a road is needed. Once that condition is satisfied, the Minister then extends power to the highway authority to purchase compulsorily any land as to which he is satisfied that its acquisition by the authority is requisite for carrying out the improvement or controlling the development of frontages to the road: That is, Sub-section (1) gives directly the power, once the road plan is accepted, for the authority to purchase land for the purpose of controlling the development of frontages. That, one knows perfectly well, is ofttimes the only method by which proper planning can be achieved and by which the authority may be recouped for the money it has expended. That is the definite provision of Subsection (1). Sub-section (5) says that where there is submitted to the Minister an order under this Section authorising the compulsory purchase of any land forming a frontage to a road, and he is satisfied—whoever "he" may be—as respects the whole or any part of the land that the purchase would be requisite only for the purpose of controlling development, then he is not to approve the order. What possible purpose can there be in saying in Sub-section (1), "You shall have the power to acquire land for a number of purposes, one of which is for the purpose of controlling the development of land alongside it" and then saying in this Sub-section we are now considering that if it is only for the purpose of controlling development, the order shall not be confirmed?
5.0 p.m.
I add that to the reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Quintin Hogg) as a good reason for rejecting this Sub-section, but I would add another to which perhaps he would not be ready to agree. What is the object of this? It is a specific provision to exclude the acquisition of land acquired for the purpose of controlling development. If a road has been built, and there is a prospect, by development in accordance with the plan, of getting a profit, there will be no lack of persons to come forward and claim the right to do it.
There will be no trouble. Those who are concerned with development will be only too glad to seize the opportunity, and if that opportunity is seized the


highway authority is not to have an order to acquire the land. It is tantamount to saying that any such possibility of acquisition by the authority shall only be in cases where no possibility of profit will inure. On those grounds I support the rejection of this Sub-section.

Mr. Silkin: While I shall be very interested to hear the reply of the Minister to the charge of illiteracy in this Subsection I think I can just make out what it means. As I understand it, where the highway authority can secure what it wants without buying the land, and can secure it in a satisfactory manner, then it should not be compelled to buy the land. I am in favour of the nationalisation of the land; I am not so much in favour of piecemeal acquisition. There are bits of land which are not wanted for any specific purpose and this Sub-section is inserted in order that local authorities should not be compelled to acquire land where they can achieve the purpose in some other manner. While the Minister may have to look at the wording again and translate it into correct English, nevertheless, with the sense of the Sub-section I am in perfect agreement.

Mr. Pritt: I would like shortly to defend the Subsection and to say that it is not illiterate and not difficult to understand. I do so not because I must always disagree with the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), because I heartily agree with him that the English language is a beautiful thing, although when used in Statutes it may not be at its best. It is suggested that nobody can ascertain what the word "he" refers to. Looking at it with a fresh mind, I conclude that "he" refers to the Minister and the Minister of War Transport if the Minister of War Transport has to bring his mind to bear on it. One or the other, as the case may be. I look at the last two lines and I see it says:
… as to which the Minister or the Minister of War Transport, as the case may be, is satisfied as aforesaid,
and I come to the conclusion that there is no difficulty in ascertaining what the word "he" means.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I think the Subsection would be clearer if, in line 30, after the words,
"War Transport" the

words, "as the case may be," were inserted, as they are inserted in the last line but one of the Sub-section. As to whether the omission of the words amounts to justifying the crime of illiteracy, that is a matter which I will leave to the good judgment of the Committee. I do not see why any section of the Committee should object to this Subsection. The effect is as has been stated by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin). It is that if you can effect your purpose without purchasing land then you need not purchase it. Surely that is common sense. You can often control frontages in a proper way by means of covenants with the owner of the land. The National Trust enters into many such covenants from one year's end to another, and they are very effective. In the case of the Minister of War Transport and his peculiar responsibility for trunk roads if he can get owners of agricultural land in remote districts to agree not to develop land, and so spread ribbon development, why should he not do so instead of acquiring the agricultural land on either side of the road? I think that, on reflection, the Committee will agree that this Sub-section is entirely justified.

Mr. H. Lawson: I agree entirely with the point made by the Minister, that there is no special reason why a highway authority should be forced to acquire land but Sub-section (4) gives ample power if they so desire and can arrange to enter into covenants. Sub-section (4) makes the point made by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), that the local authority shall be given power to enter into agreement and shall not be forced to acquire land they do not want.

Mr. Moelwyn Hug;hes: I am sorry, but the Minister's answer does not set out the exact position. Nobody is suggesting that in a case where a local authority can achieve its object without purchase it should not do so. But that is not the point. Sub-section (5) does not arise until the authority has made an order, an order desiring the acquisition of land alongside a road for the purposes of development. In other words, the position we are dealing with is not that of a local authority achieving its object without application to purchase land or control it but of a local authority which has decided that for purposes of development it requires to acquire adjacent land. Sub-section (5)


says that an order made in the circumstances I have mentioned, where people will comply with the conditions of development, shall not be confirmed. We are dealing here with legislation to prevent them from acquiring land which they desire to acquire for the purposes of proper development alongside roads.

Sir J. Lamb: I have an Amendment down, Mr. Williams, dealing with the question of the purchase of land. I would like to know whether it will be called.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is no doubt referring to his Amendment in page 7, line 36, to leave out, "or is willing to enter." I am sorry, but it was my fault that in putting the Amendment to leave out the Sub-section I did not protect the hon. Member's Amendment as I should have done. He can raise the matter on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and, if his proposal is accepted by the Government, an Amendment can be put in in another place.

Major Thorneycroft: I would ask my right hon. Friend to look carefully at the wording of the Sub-section. He suggested that the words, "as the case may be," should be inserted after the words, "War Transport," in line 30, but if that was done the reading of the first part of the Sub-section would be this:
Where there is submitted to the Minister, or the Minister of War Transport, as the case may be, proposes to make, an Order under this Section …
The words originally meant practically nothing, but if the words, "as the case may be," are inserted the Sub-section will be absolutely meaningless.

Mr. Pickthorn: While my right hon. Friend is looking at this, I hope he will look at the word "abutting." The argument used before by the Attorney-General was that it was most important that where you mean the same thing, you should use the words you used on a previous occasion. Unfortunately he said the draftsmen said "may" when they did not mean "may," so we must now say "may" although we do not mean "may." Now, instead of adjacent or contiguous we have abutting or adjacent. I should like to know whether abutting here means the same as contiguous in

Clause 1. It seems to me that the same words ought to be used here as in Clause I.

Sir J. Lamb: On a previous occasion my right hon. Friend undertook to see whether words that I proposed would not be more suitable than those that he was adopting. Perhaps he would do the same on this occasion.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. John Wilmot: The Clause provides that the Minister of War Transport may in certain circumstances acquire land to improve or re-site a main trunk road. Here again it seems to me there is an omission of power to acquire land to accommodate persons displaced by putting a trunk road in another place. Residence and business premises may be displaced, and it would be inappropriate that the Minister of War Transport should be without powers to acquire the necessary land to reinstate those people. He will not necessarily want to reinstate them on new frontages. The main trunk road would possibly be better without them being reinstated on those frontages. Perhaps the Minister would consider between this and the next stage whether it would not be desirable to extend the powers of the Ministry of War Transport so that they can acquire not only the land to make the road but land to re-accommodate those who have been displaced.

Sir J. Lamb: The Clause contains the words "or is willing to enter." My proposal was to delete those words. An application for an Order to purchase land is subject to conditions (a) and (b), but there may be great delay as it stands at present because one of the conditions is that the owner may express a willingness to purchase. Supposing he withdraws that willingness—he has not given an undertaking—the local authority will be in great difficulty because the condition has not been complied with under which the Order was applied for. If the words "or willing to enter" were taken out, it would mean that there would have to be an agreement. If an agreement Was given and subsequently withdrawn, the authority might find great difficulty as to what the procedure would be.

5.15 p.m.

Captain Prescott: I was rather shocked when my right hon. Friend said that persons displaced as a result of the acquisition of land would be re-accommodated along the frontages of the highways. These highways are not going to be constructed necessarily in the area of extensive war damage, but in other parts of the borough.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: indicated dissent.

Captain Prescott: I was definitely under the impression that that was the observation my right hon. Friend made. If it is not his intention that these people should be accommodated on the frontages of the new highways, obviously they will have to be accommodated on some other land, and the question arises on what land he is going to make provision. I suggest that a good case can be made out in circumstances such as these for empowering a local authority to purchase land in order to erect houses for these people. I should like an assurance—it would ease my mind—that it is not his view that such people will necessarily be re-instated along the frontages of the new highways.

Mr. Morrison: My hon. and gallant Friend need have no fear that I am in favour of accommodating persons along main roads. Two types of highway authorities are in question. There are the highways in built-up areas, and on the other hand there are our great trunk roads and classified roads in open country and different considerations arise as between the two cases. In answer to the hon. Member opposite who raised the point of the accommodation of persons who had been displaced, Sub-section (2) deals with Ministry of War Transport roads and, if persons are displaced by that sort of operation, they should be accommodated by the planning authority, who have ample powers to put them in their proper place. I will consider again what he has said but I think there is no defect in the Bill. I will look at the words my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) has suggested.

Mr. Silkin: There is an obligation cast on a local authority to provide accommodation for persons who have been displaced but, unless they can have the land to do it, the right hon. Gentleman is putting an obligation on them which they are not in a position to discharge. It may

well be that they will have the land, in which case they will not come along and ask for an order compulsorily to acquire additional land. It is only in the case where they satisfy him that they cannot carry out this obligation without acquiring the additional land, and in such a case surely the right hon. Gentleman must give them the power. I hope he will look at it from that angle.

Captain Prescott: Is there any other provision in the Bill, apart from the Amendment, which would give my right hon. Friend that power?

Mr. Morrison: I think the general power to acquire land for what we call the overspill, especially when considered with the wider definition, would contain ample power. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member and I had better have a word about it and, if there is any doubt, we will put it right.

Mr. Douglas: The Minister has stated that the land required for replacement of persons dispossessed will be provided by the local planning authority, but the highway authority and the local planning authority are not necessarily the same authority. In a great many cases they may be different, and practical experience in handling these matters has shown that when it is desired to acquire land for purposes of street improvement, road widening and so on, it is advantageous for the acquiring authority to have the power to provide land for replacement of persons dispossessed. It is in many cases more convenient for the people who are displaced and it saves the acquiring authority additional costs of compensation. Experience has shown that it is a more economical procedure, and I would ask the Minister to look at it again.
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 5.—(Grants towards loan charges in respect of acquisition and clearing of land for dealing with war damage.)

Amendments made: In page 8, line 35, leave out "a part of their area being."

In line 37, after "any," insert "such."

In line 38, leave out "and," and insert "or."

In line 40, leave out "replacements," and insert:
re-location of population or industry or for replacement of open space.

In line 41, leave out "a part of their," and insert "an."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 8, line 42, leave out from "of," to end of line 44; and insert:
the following amounts, that is to say,—

(i) as respects moneys borrowed to defray cost falling within paragraph (a) of this Sub-section, of amounts equal to the loan charges which the authority are liable to pay for the period of two years beginning with the date on which the moneys were borrowed, together with such further amounts as are provided for by the following provisions of this Section;
(ii) as respects moneys borrowed to defray cost falling within paragraph (b) of this Sub-section, of amounts equal to the loan charges which the authority are liable to pay for such period as is mentioned in the last preceding paragraph, together with further amounts equal to one half of the loan charges which the authority are liable to pay for the period of two years beginning with the end of that period."

This Amendment makes a change in the financial arrangements we have previously considered and is in the direction of doing something more for the assistance of the overspill areas. The original proposition was that the grant-in-aid of the loan charges for acquiring the overspill land should be paid for the first two years and thereafter cease. The second paragraph makes a change which I think will be generally welcomed.

Captain Duncan: In the Explanatory Memorandum the cost of Clause 1 procedure is estimated in total to be of the order of £575,000,000. It is estimated that the amount payable out of the Exchequer will come to something under £50,000,000. To what extent does the Amendment affect these figures?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid that I cannot give a figure reasonably accurate enough to be of assistance to my hon. and gallant Friend. As we get on, the size of the task will become more evident, and I shall be able to answer him.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 9, line 4, after "of," insert "such."
In line 4, leave out from "damage," to "incapable," in line 5.
In line 6, after "purpose," insert:
and that the rendering of it capable of being brought into use has been for the time being impracticable or could have been accomplished only in a manner involving wasteful expense or bad planning.
In line 15, after "concerned," insert:
and with any local authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Mr. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 9, line 20, at the end, to insert:
and as to the application of the provisions of this Sub-section where those provisions have effect as respects more than one authority in relation to the same area of extensive war damage.
It is thought that cases will arise where more than one local authority qualifies for a grant in respect of purchases in the same area of extensive war damage. These words are intended to deal with that situation in an equitable manner.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 9, line 20, at the end, to insert:
and in particular rules made under this Subsection may provide that in such circumstances as may be specified by the rules a development of land need not be treated as the bringing of the land into use for a substantial purpose, notwithstanding that apart from such provision it would fall to be so treated, so long as the local planning authority in question are prevented by such circumstances relating to the area as may be specified by the rules from obtaining a return from the development which is substantial having regard to the nature thereof.
Under the Clause as it is drafted grants after the first two years cease to be paid on land as soon as it is capable of being brought into use for any substantial purpose. It is common knowledge that in the early stages of reconstruction planning authorities may only be able to let land on terms which include a preliminary period at a very low or nominal rent, hoping to recoup themselves later as the property becomes developed. If they did that the land might be held to be brought into use for a substantial purpose, but they would not be deriving any substantial revenue from it. The Amendment provides that the payment of grants shall be continued in respect of land so let in such circumstances as may be specified in rules hereafter to be made.
Amendment agreed to.


5.30 p.m.
Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 27, after "apply," insert "or are treated as having applied."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Mr. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 9, line 33, at the end, to add:
() For the purposes of this Section the Minister may, in such cases as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine, treat land appropriated by a local planning authority for any of the purposes of this Part of this Act as if it had been acquired by them for that purpose in the exercise of powers conferred by this Part of this Act at such cost as the Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine and as if the cost had been defrayed by the application, at the time of the appropriation, of moneys belonging to the authority.
() Where the cost of the acquisition by a Local planning authority of any land is reduced by reason of the land being subject to a restriction on the development or use thereof imposed by or under any enactment, any payment made by the authority in connection with the restriction (whether by way of compensation or of contribution towards damage or expense incurred in consequence of the restriction) not exceeding the amount by which the said cost is reduced as aforesaid shall be treated for the purposes of the preceding provisions of this Section as if it bad been part of the cost of the acquisition of the land, and as if it had been defrayed by the application, at the time of the acquisition, of moneys belonging to the authority.
Some local authorities have bought land, in anticipation of their reconstruction duties. As the Bill is drafted they could receive no grant in respect of those purchases, but that would mean that authorities who have acted with energy and forethought would be penalised in comparison with those who act only after the Bill has been produced. The Amendment is intended to put that right. The other object of the Amendment is to enable grant to be paid on compensation paid by authorities for restrictions which have reduced the cost of land acquired under the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 6.—(Contributions of local planning authorities towards expenses of local highway authorities under this Part, and grants in respect of such contributions.)

Amendment made: In page 9, line 43, leave out "replacements," and insert:
re-location of population or industry or for replacement of open space."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Earl Winterton: Is the Minister quite satisfied, under the Clause as it stands—it is purely permissive—that if a local planning authority refuses to pay towards expenses incurred by the local highway authority—and there is no appeal to the Minister at all—that that will be a satisfactory situation? Might not a position arise in which there would be a dispute between the planning authority and the highway authority, the planning authority saying: "This is not a very good scheme, and we are not intending to co-operate in it at all"?

Mr. Morrison: I hardly think that the kind of internecine strife mentioned by the Noble Lord is likely to occur; but I will certainly look into the point, and if there is anything in it I will suggest means of avoiding it. The reason why the provision is permissive instead of mandatory is that it has been common form for a long time. Its effect is that if a local authority make a contribution, the local authority cannot be surcharged by the district auditor because they have the permission of the Statute to do so.

Earl Winterton: I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend, but I do not think I could agree that there is no likelihood of internecine strife. I have known of fights between an education committee and a local authority. I think the point needs looking into, because these works are going to be carried out on a very large scale.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 8.—(Quinquennial review of financial effect of redevelopment.)

Mr. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 11, line 42, after "concerned," insert:
and with any local authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable.
For the purpose of Clause 8 certain consultations with associations of local authorities are enjoined. I gather, however, that important local authorities, namely, the London County Council and


the Corporation of the City of London, do not belong to those associations. The Amendment will enable their voice to be heard also in those consultations.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 12, line 11, to leave out "Sections five and six," and to insert "Sub-section (2) or (3) of Section five."
Clause 5, as we have amended it, would allow grant consisting of the payment of the loan charges for a period of two years in respect of the acquisition or clearing of land in war-damaged areas, overspill areas, and land for highway purposes; half the loan charges for the third and fourth years in respect of over-spill land; and the loan charges, or a part of them, from the third to the tenth year—or in special circumstances, the fifteenth year—in respect of the acquisition of clearing of land in war-damaged areas only and subject to certain conditions.
Clause 8, as at present drafted, provides that, to the extent that a net gain may eventually accrue to an authority from the redevelopment of the land, all such grant shall be subject to repayment to the Exchequer, as also grant under Clause 6 in respect of highway contributions. The Amendment is designed to make only the grant in respect of land in war-damaged areas during the third to the tenth or fifteenth year subject to repayment, and to allow the first two years—and in respect of over-spill, the third and fourth years also—loan charges and the grant under Clause 6 as an outright grant. This concession is made in recognition of the fact that the local planning authorities can hardly be expected to obtain any return in the early years of their reconstruction projects.
In other words, the effect is that the first two years of grant in respect of loan charges are to be a free gift and are not to be taken back into account when the question of refund to the Exchequer arises. The same is also true as regards the grant for overspill, which was the full grant for two years, and half the grant for the next two. That is not to be taken into account when a balance is struck.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 9.—(Power to purchase land for redevelopment of areas of bad lay-out and obsolete development: authorisation under special procedure with local inquiry.)

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I beg to move, in page 12, line 16, to leave out from "satisfied," to "should," in line 21, and to insert:
on an application made to him by the local planning authority that for the purpose of making an adequate improvement in the conditions prevailing in a part or parts of their area by reason of the arrangement of the existing buildings and their character, design, age or condition it is requisite that the land in the said part of parts.
The object of this Amendment is to give some definition of what is obsolete, because it is obviously not of such vital, pressing and urgent importance to acquire land which some planners may think is badly laid out but which others may think is well laid out. Therefore, I suggest that the words "good lay-out" or "bad lay-out" are not a close enough definition. We want to see what the Minister is after in asking for these special powers. This Bill will unquestionably affect thousands of people. I heard an hon. Member, who, I am sure, is very well informed, say they would run into five figures or more so far as houses are concerned—in London, I presume. We need to be very careful to make sure what cases these powers are to be given to deal with. A lot of people will want to know whether, once the war is over, they can get settled down again, they will want to be left in peace to restore their businesses, build up their goodwill, and re-make their homes, which have been shattered by five years or more of war. Therefore I think that we need to make clear at the earliest possible moment who are likely to be affected by the provisions of this Bill. I am sure my right hon. Friend will be the first to admit that planners differ more than anybody one knows, almost more than Members of Parliament.

Viscountess Astor: How many planners does the hon. and gallant Member know?

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I would reply to the Noble Lady that we are all doing our best to plan, perhaps with the exception of the Noble Lady when she is in her most destructive mood. I do not think it can quite be left to the planners to say


what is good or what is bad, and I suggest that the words in this Amendment do give us a better definition of what my right hon. Friend is after when he is asking for these powers over what he calls bad lay-out areas.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I should like to support this Amendment. I certainly want to enlarge the purposes for which local authorities can acquire land. This Amendment does it very effectively. I hope my right hon. Friend will see his way to accept it and make both my hon. and gallant Friend and myself happy.

Mr. H. Strauss: In spite of the formidable new coalition I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment. A very serious objection to it is that it would enable re-development to be carried out only over the precise area in which the conditions are bad in the way defined. It would give a wholly inadequate new unit of re-development, and I am a little astonished that the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), temporarily swept off his feet by the eloquence of my hon. and gallant Friend, should have given his support to an Amendment which I am afraid may result in his being attacked in the technical Press. I hope they may pay a tribute to his sense of humour. The narrowness of the test to be applied becomes obvious when we consider some of the matters not mentioned for which it may be desirable to lay-out an area afresh, for instance, lack of adequate open space, congestion, inadequate road width and many other things. I think I have said sufficient to show there are technical faults in the Amendment proposed and I suggest that the words in the Bill are altogether more satisfactory for those who are eager to deal with these areas.

Mr. H. Lawson: The Minister is now wanting to widen this Clause, which has been criticised as being drawn too narrowly. Conditions have to be bad in the way of lay-out and obsolete development, and my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) and I would very much like to see the Clause widened. The Parliamentary Secretary is now holding out hopes that he is prepared to do that. I hope he will carry that into effect.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: There is a deplorable state of affairs in a mushroom town in my own constituency, where people are without any sewerage and have no water supply. I think my hon. Friend would have been able to deal with a situation of that kind under the words of the Amendment, better than he will under the words of this Clause.

Mr. H. Strauss: If I remember accurately the particulars of the area to which my hon. Friend refers, I think that almost any definition of an area of bad lay-out would cover his land. [Interruption.] I am sorry, I meant the land within his constituency. I was not suggesting that he was responsible. I can assure the Committee that there is no doubt whatever that the words of the Amendment, notwithstanding the support that my hon. and gallant Friend has obtained, will not enable the redevelopment to take place which I believe is desired in every quarter of the Committee, and I advise the Committee unhesitatingly to reject the Amendment, unless indeed my hon. and gallant Friend, terrified by the support he has now received, thinks fit to withdraw it.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I am bitterly disappointed to think of all the work entailed in putting forward an Amendment of this description being swept aside by the Minister so cursorily. I think the Government have missed the golden opportunity which was presented of wedding the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) and myself. To show my hon. Friend that I have no umbrage in regard to this matter, I do not intend to press it to a division. I do not intend that it shall be negatived and, with permission, I will merely withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I beg to move, in page 12, line 20, to leave out "of."
It would be, I think, to the advantage of the Committee, if we could consider this Amendment and the next Amendment in my name together.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. McLean Watson): Very well, if the Committee agrees to that course.

Mr. Hughes: I move these two serious Amendments in the interests of purity of


grammar and syntax as well as on the ground of principle. I find that, as the line now stands, it contains the phrase:
where such conditions exist of or such land …
I suggest to the Committee—without reading the whole Sub-section in full—that if this were made to read:
where such conditions exist or of such land …
that would be good grammar, good syntax, good sense, and sound principle.

The Attorney-General: The Government gladly accept this and the following Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 12, line 20, after "or" insert "of."—[Mr. Moelwyn Hughes.]

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 12, line 21, after the second "land," to insert "contiguous or."
This is a drafting Amendment.

Sir J. Lamb: This is a matter which I have argued before. I have another Amendment down on this point, although I am not sure that it will be called. If the right hon. Gentleman will give an undertaking that this covers the point, I will not move my Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 12, line 21, after "thereto," insert:
or such a part or parts of their area together with land outside their area contiguous or adjacent thereto.
In line 23, after "area," insert:
and any such land outside their area as aforesaid."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 12, line 26, to leave out from "Act," to the end of the Sub-section.
This is one of the series of Amendments that the Committee were good enough to agree we should take formally, leaving the discussion to the Schedule.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 12, line 27, at end, insert:
References in the following provisions of this section to a part of the area of an authority as to which the Minister is so satisfied include references to land as to which he is so satisfied consisting of a part of the area of the authority

together with land outside their area but contiguous or adjacent thereto.
In line 30, leave out "replacements," and insert:
re-location of population or industry or for replacement of open space."—(Mr. H. Strauss.)

6.0 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 12, line 35, to leave out from "the," to end of Sub-section, and insert:
expressions 're-location of population or industry,' and 'replacement of open space,' have, in relation to a part of the area of a local planning authority as to which the Minister is satisfied as aforesaid, the like meanings as are assigned to those expressions respectively by Section one of this Act in relation to an area of extensive war damage.
I can assure the Committee that this is a purely drafting Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made:
In page 13, line 10, leave out "in other respects."
In line 11, leave out from "Act," to end of line 12.
In line 26, after "that," insert "part of that."
In line 28, leave out "replacements," and insert:
for re-location of population or industry or for replacement of open space.
In line 28, at end, insert "part of that."
In line 43, leave out Sub-section (5).
In page 14, line 28, leave out "replacements," and insert:
re-location of population or industry or for replacement of open space.
In line 33, leave out "replacements," and insert "such re-location or replacement."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Earl Winterton: I am sorry that I have to detain the Committee for a few moments to raise a matter which I think is of some importance. It was referred to in one Amendment which has not been called. I am in thorough agreement with the Clause, and especially with the preliminary intention, but, if I may say so, this is a thoroughly urban Clause. It takes no account whatever of this situation, which might very easily arise. For


the purpose of this Clause it might be necessary, or be considered by the appropriate authority to be necessary, to take most valuable agricultural land. It is a matter of indifference to me, from the point of view of my submission to the Committee, whether the land is owned by a private individual, a public corporation or some other body not being a local authority. Let me give an instance in point. There is a certain borough in Sussex—I do not think the hon. Members who represent it here would mind my saying that it is the Borough of Brighton—where, as a result of war-time requirements for food production, and as a result, above everything else, of the patriotic conduct of the local authority, within the boundaries of that borough no less than 1,800 acres are being devoted to food production. I happen to know the chairman of the appropriate Committee who deals with it, and the figures are impressive. He has done it without instigation from anybody. There are thousands of authorities in this country who could have done the same thing had they chosen, but they have not done so.
Let us consider what would be the effect in a borough like this. There is this land, admirably developed for agricultural purposes, and the urban authority says, "We are not concerned with anything like that; food supply does not matter to us; we are planning and thinking of making this a more beautiful place, where people can live happily and get the blessing of the authorities—like Plymouth and elsewhere." I want to know what reservation of power there is in this Clause to see that the Ministry of Agriculture, which should be the appropriate authority, has some power of submission to the Ministry.
It does not matter whether it is private land or public land. I maintain, and I am sure hon. Members on the opposite side of the House representing agricultural constituencies will agree, that it is a crime before God and man to build houses on land suitable for food production when there is equally good land available for the purpose. [Interruption.] Let the Noble Lady for once hold her tongue and listen to somebody else. She may know something about a great many other things, but she does not know anything about agriculture. I should like to go on and say that I very much hope that the Minister,

who throughout has been most fair in consideration of the points put to him, will be able to give an assurance on this point. I, personally, would like to have seen in the Clause some provision that, where agricultural land of a certain value was comprised in the area, the consent of the Ministry of Agriculture should be obtained.
I have spoken strongly, but I feel strongly. From one end of the country to the other we are told that the one thing necessary is the preservation of our agriculture. From one end of the country to the other we are told by the town planners that the only thing that matters is town planning. Surely, even in this illogical and inconsistent country, there must be some point of contact between the two, and I should suggest that it is perfectly possible and reasonable to put houses on land not required for agricultural purposes. The Clause applies to the replanning of land, and I would strongly press upon the Minister that he should consider this point and give us an assurance that, if he cannot do it here, he will, in another place, devise some form of words by which the importance of agriculture shall be recognised. There have been many Royal Commissions and everyone has pressed the need for watching the interests of agricultural land.

Captain Duncan: Under the 1936 Housing Act there is a provision for the development of land, but it has the limiting effect that, although the area must be of bad lay-out and obsolete development, it must also be overcrowded. To what extent is this provision going to supersede the 1936 Act, and what is to be the real difference in procedure here in obtaining a better lay-out for the clearance of our slums than is contained in the procedure under the 1936 Act, which before the war was working exceedingly satisfactorily?

Rear-Admiral Beamish (Lewes): The fears expressed by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) are wholly justified and I hope the Minister will give some comfort not only to the Noble Lord but to all Members of Parliament who represent coastal areas. I know the districts to which he has referred and the crime that has been committed in the name of planning. There is a particular area in my division which is, through no fault whatever of any inhabi-


tant in the area, literally a blot upon the fair face of Sussex and England. I welcome Clause 9 very much indeed, because I think it will bring an end to that sort of real estate roguery which has been perpetrated in the division of my hon. Friend and certainly in my division. I particularly hope, as the Noble Lord has said, that the local authority will not get areas adjacent or contiguous to the blot on the face of Nature without doing everything they can to see that the land they take is not agricultural land. The particular area about which I speak is known throughout the world as agricultural land, but hundreds of acres have been completely spoilt. I ask the Minister to give some assurance that agricultural land will not be utilised in these re-development schemes.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam: I should like to support the Noble Lord, because recently in my part of the world, this new authority, whoever they may be, have decided, I am certain without any reference to the Minister of Agriculture, to build hostels for Bevin boys on a very excellent piece of agricultural land. They were told that there were many pieces of land available for the purpose, and I am told by the agricultural committee of the county that nothing would compel them to take the obvious land. They must have the best agricultural land because for some reason or other it suited them. The Minister of Agriculture should be given some chance of defending agriculture.

Lieut. - Commander Joynson - Hicks: I want to reinforce the appeal which my Noble Friend made to the Minister. I could confirm, if it were necessary, everything he has said, particularly on the South coast, where continuously and contiguously, agricultural land has been encroached upon fitting by any town planner at all. This right hon. Gentleman has given a very satisfactory assurance on the point with regard to an earlier Clause, but this case is stronger, and I appeal for at least some assurance to be given, because it has a long-term aspect.

Sir J. Lamb: Stress has been laid on the interests of agriculture and this is not only in the interests of agriculture but in the national interest.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: I wish to ask whether the Minister will give some help to those local authorities who have very little agricultural land in their district but who have land which may be made available to enable them to undertake town and country planning.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I will consider what my hon. Friend opposite has said and see if I can do anything to help. On the larger question raised by the Noble Lord and spoken to with eloquence by hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, I can only repeat what I said at an earlier stage when the same point came up on an Amendment. I then informed the Committee that the preservation of good agricultural land, and the discrimination which does not waste one of our most precious and lasting assets, must henceforward form a part of the national policy for the use of land. I informed the Committee at that stage—and I repeat it briefly for the benefit of those who have come in since—that a kind of new machinery has been established to try and give effect to this laudable purpose. I described how in my Department we had a survey of all the land in the country, showing its agricultural quality and value. I described how my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and I collaborated with regard to this matter; and there is not only collaboration between us in a general sense, but at the regional level of our respective regional offices. The land utilisation officer and my regional planning officer are in close and daily contact, and in respect of all the sites passed by my Department for new housing the agricultural aspect has in every case been considered. Much damage has been done in the past by the erection of ramshackle places in Sussex; they are an abomination which should not be committed.
There has been much want and waste of agricultural land in the past, and as far as it lies within me—and I am sure that I speak for the whole Committee—it should not be permitted to continue. In this matter there is really no divergence of interest between town and country at all. It is in the interests of the


town and the English countryside that agriculture should be maintained, and equally it is in the interests of the countryside that the towns should be cleaned up and bad and obsolete development wiped away and the town be made a fit and proper place in which to live. It is one of the long-term policies along with the preserving of the countryside. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan) asked how this fitted in with earlier development powers, slum clearance and so on. The general position is that the different powers which already existed are maintained. Whereas the standard in a slum clearance case is a sanitary one arising purely from sanitary considerations, the standards in this Clause are wide and enable more general considerations tending to the wellbeing of the people to be taken into account.

Mr. Rhys Davies: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me raising a new issue, for I have not followed this Bill very closely; but while we are on Clause 9, I would like him to explain one point in the words "obsolete development." Let me refer to the district which I represent and the contiguous areas where the issue is not a problem of agricultural land at all: it is not in fact the ordinary problem of town planning which we have been discussing. In that area you have large patches of territory covered with huge rubbish heaps from coal mines and lakes called "flashes" made artificially by these tips. The result is that there is not much agricultural land left in some of those parts that would attract new industries. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether a local authority has power to clean up such an area? So far as I understand the law, if a firm builds a factory or sinks a coal mine in any spot in this country and works it for 50 or 100 years, the owner can then leave the whole place derelict and there is no power on earth to compel him to clear the rubbish he has caused to accumulate. Could one, two or more authorities covering an area like that clean the place up under this Bill, or would an amendment be required?
A number of the authorities in the Wigan area have met together and discussed this problem, and I should imagine that some Government Department has already received representations on this

point. It is no use talking about attracting new industries to such a district for, although all the services are there, gas, electricity, railways, schools, roads and so on, they will not come; but they might be attracted if the place were made tidy. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore be good enough to say, either now or later, that the local authorities shall have any power under this Bill to clean up an area in order to attract the industries that are very necessary to maintain the population. Between the two wars the Wigan district was one of the most depressed in the land.

Mr. Turton: I hope the Minister wilt reconsider further this question of agricultural land. He has really been repeating the remarks he made on Clause 1 and there is a very wide difference between Clause 1 and Clause 9. Clause 1 deals with a temporary emergency question of the blitzed areas; Clause 9 relates to land improvement and it seems to me that a statutory body for consultation between two Ministers will be the only safeguard we have far agricultural land in the future. Indeed, the case given by the hon. and gallant Member for North Newcastle (Sir C. Headlam) is in itself an indication that the present situation does not work. In many areas, although there is consultation between the Regional Officer of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and the Regional Officer of the Ministry of Agriculture, bad sites are being chosen. The hon. and gallant Member for North Newcastle cited the hostel for Bevin boys. Elsewhere in the country there will be mistakes made until we get into a Bill a provision that when deciding planned lay-outs the lay-out of agriculture will be considered as well as the lay-out of buildings. May I ask my right hon. Friend to consider before the Report stage whether in this Clause, or in some other Clause, he would make a statutory authority for consultation with the agricultural interest, if it does not offend the constitutional problem between the two Ministers themselves?

Earl Winterton: I think that on the whole the Minister's reply was satisfactory, if it were not for the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Newcastle (Sir C. Headlam)—I would like to thank him and the other hon. Gentleman for their support—in


which he described the disgraceful case of a Government Department taking a piece of excellent agricultural land when other land was available. If this arrangement to which my right hon. Friend referred is in existence, how did it come about that the Ministry of Labour was able to do this work to which reference was made?

Captain Strickland: They did it at Coventry.

Earl Winterton: As my hon. and gallant Friend has reminded us, they have done it at Coventry. What is the objection to making it a statutory obligaion on the Minister? What is the abjection to having this Clause worded—" the Minister shall after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture"? No one would ever accuse my right hon. Friend of being in the least subtle or of attempting to conceal something, and it does seem rather difficult to understand why the matter should not be put in black and white. My hon. Friends, not on one but on all sides of the Committee, attach importance to this matter, and I would therefore ask the Minister to promise that he will give further consideration to it.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Before my right hon. Friend answers, may I add to the point made by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies)? He spoke about the difficulty in many parts of the country, particularly in the older industrialised areas, which has arisen as a result of the unsightly tips, the derelict buildings, and so on. We in South Wales have suffered very considerably from the effects of the industrial life of this country, going back some generations. Will the right hon. Gentleman, in implementing this Bill when it becomes law, have powers to take over the excellent work carried out by the Commissioner for the Special Areas? The Commissioner and his Department have devoted themselves to clearing up some of these unsightly relics of the past, and these communities still have a great deal of industrial possibility—in fact, they have proved that during this war. But when the war industries come to an end those districts will still suffer from the manner in which they have for years now repelled prospective employers who would, were the districts more attractive, in all probability have established some industries

there. If the Department of the Commissioner for Special Areas comes to an end, will the right hon. Gentleman through his Department assume some of those responsibilities?
I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman will not get the full benefit out of this Bill when it becomes law unless he assumes some responsibility, either under this Bill or in some other way, to make a contribution to many of the Special Areas—now called Development Areas—which have great potential industrial possibilities. They cannot be planned out successfully unless these unsightly tips and derelict buildings are removed. My own constituency presents the most unsightly and most unattractive evidences of the past industry of this country. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us whether he can hold out some hope, in view of the fact that local authorities have not the resources to try to remove the evidence of a great industrial contribution to this country.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Foster: I would like to support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). This Bill is designed for the special purpose of dealing with blitzed areas, and this Clause, of course, does give some measure of relief to what are described as "blighted" areas. Speeches have been made which have assumed that blitzed areas in all cases are in a worse position than blighted areas, but in my view there are some blighted areas which are much worse than some of the blitzed areas. The constituency I represent, and the surrounding area, might be described as a "super blighted area." There are hundreds of acres of land which are under water, there are huge dirt heaps and derelict industrial sites. There is hardly any land that can be acquired by the local authority either for housing purposes or for converting into industrial sites except land that is derelict, and which would be suitable for industry provided it could be cleared.
I want to give an example of what I mean, and add to the appeal which has been made for some financial assistance to be granted to local authorities. In my constituency is a site on which there was once one of the biggest iron-works in


this country. In the last war these works were bombed by Zeppelins and they were closed because of a merger which took place with the Lancashire Steel Corporation. The site was left derelict. Recently the Corporation has been trying to attract industries to that area because of the serious unemployment which existed before the war, when there were between 5,000 and 6,000 people out of work. In the neighbouring constituency of Westhoughton practically all the works were closed and there, too, there was a big unemployment problem. Recently an industrial firm was prepared to take the site provided it could be made suitable for the erection of the buildings they required. The site is convenient, it has an adjacent railway, canal and good road, there is a good supply of electricity and gas and all the conveniences that are required. But sunk in the site are concrete foundations going down to a depth of 20 feet. Further, the land slopes and a huge heap of dirt has been piled up near the site. This firm was not prepared to spend money on clearing the site, but said that if the local authority or any other interests concerned would clear it they would take it. The Corporation is in a difficulty in that they have no power, neither has the Treasury, to give financial assistance for the clearing of the site. This Bill will not do much for the blighted areas and constituencies like mine unless some financial assistance can be given to local authorities to help them to clear away these ugly heaps of dirt and recover land which, owing to mining subsidence, is covered by water. I therefore hope the Minister will do something which will give some hope to local authorities which are placed in that position.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Perhaps I might reply now to the observations of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) and the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Foster), who have drawn attention to blighted areas in their own constituencies and areas of which they have knowledge. It is no use pretending to them that this Bill or Clause carries with it any financial assistance. I must be frank; it does nothing of the kind. We have discussed the pros and cons of that before, but if there are districts such as they have described to me, as there are, I think they might be areas of bad lay-out

and obsolete development which could be acquired under this Clause. When the hon. Member opposite raised the question of development areas as a whole, as we now call them, the policy, steps and action which will be required to be undertaken to deal with that problem, although involving the proper use of land and, therefore, my Department, also transcend very greatly my particular Departmental responsibility. Questions of unemployment, trade and industry are involved, but so far as the problem can be helped by the proper use of land I shall endeavour to do my best to contribute towards a solution.
We have had a long discussion on the question of agricultural land. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) will do me the honour of reading what I said earlier on a Clause which dealt wih bomb damaged areas and the overspill from them. That was the short-term problem; this is the long-term problem, and what I said about agricultural land, having regard to the short-term programme, applies a fortion and all the more to the long-term programme. Cases were mentioned where development has already taken place. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Sir C. Headlam) mentioned one, and all I can say is that the machinery is functioning as far as it can and is being improved and that Members of the Committee will assist me if they let me know of any case which warrants investigation of that kind. I cannot express—my Noble Friend would not expect me to express—an opinion on the merits of the case.

Earl Winterton: I asked what was the objection to making this a statutory part of my right hon. Friend's obligations.

Mr. Morrison: We went into that. It is really a constitutional point, and that is all there is to it. Perhaps hon. Members will let me know of any case of that sort so that I can have it investigated and find out how it arose and prevent it happening again.

Mr. Tinker: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to this matter, because all over Lancashire we are affected by this trouble, and we are taking this opportunity of impressing on the Committee the needs of our particular localities. This


is a case where planners could make a good name for themselves. I think the right hon. Gentleman might examine the provisions of the Bill before it finally passes and see if anything could be altered which would give some hope to the mining areas, because this will have to be tackled at some time or other. Whole areas have been made practically derelict through subsidence, and one expects at a time like this some hope from the Minister. We cannot allow the occasion to pass without impressing on the Committee what is happening in many parts of the country. Compare Brighton with places like Leigh, Ince and Wigan. Imagine one part enjoying all the amenities of nature and others having to suffer the indignity of commercialism. We want to impress on the Minister the urgent need to do his best to make some improvement in the places where we live.

The Deputy-Chairman: This discussion has gone on rather a long time. I have been doubtful at times whether it was strictly in Order. I would ask the Committee whether it is not time to settle the Clause.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I want to ask the Minister whether he will have power to prevent subsidence. There are thousands of acres in Yorkshire under water which were good agricultural land not many years ago, and the colliery companies have robbed the country of hundreds of acres of good agricultural land by putting muck heaps on top. Surely to Heaven some Government Department is going to prevent that kind of thing going on all through the ages. The Minister has a lot of power, and if he asked for more he would get it. If you go along the Midland Railway, on both sides it is almost like the sea. You might think you were at Blackpool. Only a few years ago the land that is now under water was growing corn and feeding cattle. We do not like to imitate Germany, but if the colliery companies would let the muck stop in the pits—

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot go at great length into the question of colliery companies and muck. I ask the Committee if they will not come to a decision.

Mr. Tom Brown: I should like to ask the Minister whether he will reinforce the promise that he made in June last year,

to the effect that he would incorporate something in the Bill which would assist us in the mining areas to do away with pit heaps.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: I think we have reason to express profound disappointment at the reply the Minister has given to the earnest pleas which have been made from this side. There is a case being made out which we want him to understand. Town and country planning means very little to us folk in the industrial North. We have been living among ugliness, sordidness, and the effects of industrialism. Where I live in Surrey we are most earnestly interested in town and country planning. I was born and bred in Lancashire. I should like to have power given me under this Bill to take a fleet of bulldozers, scrapers, and 10-ton shovels to clean up those areas and present them as things of "beauty and a joy for ever." It can be done. We have mobilised bulldozers, scrapers and shovels for open-cast mining. The Earl of Fitzwilliam complained to me a few days ago of the ugliness that was being created by excavations almost on his own door. Some of us were taken to another part where reinstatement work had taken place. The land had been levelled and you could play cricket on it as well as you could at Lords or the Oval.
Never mind to whom the land belongs, why cannot we have the power under this Bill to reinstate some of the industrial areas which have surrounded us all our lives? Outside the window of the house where I was born, in the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince, there can be seen 184 chimneys, miles of them, and there are pit heaps and ugliness everywhere. No one has the power to straighten out these heaps. Our folk are very concerned about them, and I want the Minister to realise that they really mean business in regard to town and country planning in the industrial North. Let me make a further contrast. Within two hours of taking my seat in this House I put down a question about flooding in my division. People's homes were being flooded with three or four feet of water. It is true that the catchment board have been engaged in some sort of work trying to prevent it occurring, and the unfortunate citizens are paying coppers and shillings each week to pay for it.


I would like the Minister to recognise that he has a responsibility in this matter. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) has suggested that there should be negotiations between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Town and Country Planning. I believe that that would help my division. We have not had flooding for two or three years, but it keeps coming back, and we should be able to say to our local councils, "There will be power for you to take action, and there will be assistance if you take action so that the land can be brought into use." Side by side with it, ugliness is being created in the new industrial areas which will repeat what has happened in places like Wigan, Westhoughton and South Wales. If I have appeared vigorous and enthusiastic in what I have said it is because I feel vigorous and enthusiastic for the folk among whom I have lived. It is because I enjoy God's fresh air in a lovely town in Surrey, and can go into the country lanes and enjoy the beauty of the countryside. We have not a pit chimney in Sutton or anything which blots the landscape, but in the North there is ugliness. If the Minister will mobilise his forces to deal with these things we will support him, but we want straightforward answers and not generalities and half-baked promises.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I want to draw attention to one thing, and I hope that the Minister will be able to do something about it between now and the Report stage. Reference has been made to areas in the North, but further South acres of agricultural land are being laid waste every year by iron-ore mining, without any restoration of the surface. This may be a difficult problem to solve, but it should be realised that there are many hundreds of thousands of acres where ore has been extracted and the land has been left lying waste. I would like the Minister to consider whether he cannot insert something in the Clause which will enable him or the authorities to acquire such land and convert it so that it will be fit for agricultural purposes.

Sir D. Gunston: I would like to reinforce the plea that has been made from both sides of the Committee. I was especially moved by the speeches that have been made by hon. Members opposite, who have painted such a terrible

picture of the conditions in the North. In this Bill we have a great opportunity of doing something to remedy those conditions. If we do not take it now it may never occur again. The whole Committee will agree with what has been said, and I should have thought the Minister could act in the way that Members have suggested. I hope that he will agree to something being inserted on the Report stage that will meet the desires of the whole Committee in this matter. 
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 10—(Power to purchase land for certain planning purposes: authorisation under normal procedure.)

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 14, line 42, to leave out "the Second Schedule," and to insert "Part 1 of the First Schedule."
This is part of that series of Amendments which the Committee was good enough to agree to take formally, reserving discussion until we get to the Schedule.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 15, line 3, at the end, to insert:
(b) for use as a public open space or a playing-field.
The Committee will remember that on the Second Reading much concern was expressed that power was not in existence for local authorities to equip themselves with playing fields and open spaces. A vast number of rather complicated legal provisions exist, but we think that this is the time to clear the matter up with further powers.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 15, line 11, after "persons", insert "or undertakings".
In line 19, leave out from "thereof", to end of line 22.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 15, line 24, at the end, to insert:
and will not be made available for such purpose unless acquired by the local planning authority.
The purpose of this Clause is to empower the Minister to authorise compulsory purchase of land which he is satisfied it is competent to acquire for certain


purposes, and the purposes are laid out. They are extraordinarily wide and might cover almost anything that the Minister wishes to authorise. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that these powers will be used only where the requirements cannot be met by the present owners of the land. The Amendment has an object which will be economical and helpful.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: My hon. and gallant Friend has drawn attention to the fact that the words as they stand in the Bill may be too wide. On the other hand, in our opinion, his words are too narrow. I think I could undertake that the wording will be reconsidered with a view to making it plain that compulsory purchase is not to be authorised where the purpose in question can be properly carried out by a private person and the land would be available to him without compulsory purchase. We shall reconsider the words but with not so much limitation as my hon. and gallant Friend proposes. I hope that he will be content with that undertaking and will withdraw the Amendment.

Commander Galbraith: In view of that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Silkin: I hope that the silence on this side of the Committee will not be interpreted to mean that we accept the Amendment. We shall reserve our comments until we see the actual proposal.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment made: In page 15, line 27, leave out "their area being land in," and insert:
or in the neighbourhood of, a part of their area being."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 15, line 32, at end, to insert:
(b) land as to which the Minister is satisfied that its acquisition by the authority is expedient on the ground that land is or will be required, in the course of the redevelopment of a part of the area of the authority being an area of extensive war damage or of land in the neighbourhood of such a part of their area, for the purpose of re-location of population or industry or of replacement of open space, and that the land in question ought to be made available for meeting that requirement.
The Amendment brings together in a more commodious part of the Bill, those categories of land. It includes land to be purchased for overspill and not only for blitzed land in the area of a local plan-

ning authority; also their neighbouring land, purchased to make it convenient for re-development. The Amendment makes the words clearer, and I hope that the Committee will accept it.

Mr. Quintin Hog;g;: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will explain to me where (a) comes in?

Mr. Morrison: It does not yet exist. It hovers about, anxious and eager to find its true place in the Bill. It will be put in by means of an ordinary rule that exists. I understand that no formal Amendment for the purpose would be permitted.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 15, line 41, at the end, add:
(4) In paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of this Section the expression" accommodation "means accommodation for residential purposes or for the carrying on of business or other activities, together with all appropriate public services, facilities for recreation, worship and amenity and other requirements."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Will the Minister consider putting into the Clause power to acquire land which is now derelict and not serving any useful purpose, where that land can be of use for an agricultural purpose?

Mr. Morrison: I certainly will consider the point.
Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 11.—(Modifications as to procedure for authorising purchase in case of land held for carrying on of statutory undertakings.)

Mr. Ross Taylor: I beg to move, in page 16, line 4, to leave out from "undertaking," to end of Subsection, and insert:
other than land used for offices, showrooms or dwelling-houses; and
(b) land which or an interest in or over which is held for eventual use for that purpose, other than land for which there is available for acquisition on reasonable terms by the person carrying on the statutory undertaking other land which, by reason of its nature and situation and having regard to the purpose of intended user of the land which or an interest in or over which is so held, could be substituted without detriment to that undertaking.


The object of the Clause is to set up a special procedure where land is to be compulsorily purchased. The Clause provides that, where land is purchased, compensation shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Fourth Schedule. Two classes of public utility undertaking are mentioned in the Clause, those dealing with transport, and undertakings for the supply of electricity, gas, hydraulic power or water. As this special procedure is being set up, it is important that the land to which it applies should be fairly defined. If the Committee will look at the later part of Sub-section (1) they will see that the drafting appears to be somewhat obscure. It reads:
Subject to the provisions of this Section in the case of land to which this Section applies, that is to say, land which is used for the purpose of the carrying on of a statutory undertaking, or in which an interest is held for that purpose"—
Here is where the difficulty arises—
other than any such land which is in respect of its nature or situation comparable rather with the generality of land as respects which those enactments have effect than of land which is used, or in which interests are held, for the purpose of the carrying on of statutory undertakings.
The object of the Amendment is to make the Clause a little clearer, and the effect would be that the Clause would apply to all land used for the purpose of the statutory undertaking, except that which is held for offices, showrooms and dwelling houses, to which the ordinary procedure applies. It applies to all land which the public utility undertakings hold for eventual use unless other land is available for acquisition on reasonable terms and can, by reason of its nature, and situation, and having regard to the purpose for which it was eventually intended to use the land, be equally suitable to the undertaking.
I think that makes the position perfectly clear, so far as public utilities to which I referred are concerned. I realise that the wording may not meet with the approval of the Minister, but I hope he will consider making some Amendment or finding some other form of words which will meet the difficulty that exists.

The Solicitor-General: I appreciate the difficulty which is in the mind of my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, and I am sure that he, in turn, appreciates the difficulty of the draftsman with this

material. We could all put it more shortly, but we want to distinguish between operational and non-operational land. When you try to put that in words which cover every possible situation, it becomes a matter of great difficulty. Without any intention to attack it, perhaps I might take my hon. Friend's proposal and show the difficulty that his wording, in turn, creates. His proposal would be at once too narrow and too wide. It would be too narrow, because offices, showrooms and dwelling houses do not include all kinds of non-operational land. You get railway hotels in the country not connected with the system, which would come into the same position. At the same time, the wording is too wide, because you constantly get an office—you may get a dwelling house—which is directly connected with the operations. Therefore we have tried to define it with reference to the generality of land, and I can assure my hon. Friend that very careful consideration has been given to this. I think, and I should so respectfully advise the Committee, that is the best definition, but I am quite aware that it is a difficult problem, and if my hon. Friend would agree, in the time between this and another stage, to make any suggestions or to discuss the matter with me or my right hon. Friend we should be only too pleased to do so because the object before us all is the same, to get as clear a definition as we can. I hope he will be satisfied with that, and I can assure him I will be only too pleased to discuss the matter further with him if he should so agree.

Mr. Ross Taylor: In view of the very kind offer of the Solicitor-General to discuss the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 16, line 15, to leave out "Department," and insert "Minister."
If one looks at the Bill one sees the words "appropriate Department," and if one looks at page 17, one sees these words again. It seems to me rather odd to refer to a Minister as an appropriate Department, and for the purpose of correct language this Amendment and another Amendment of a similar nature have been put down. It seems to me quite wrong


that we should refer to any Minister as a Department.

The Solicitor-General: Again, I have great sympathy with the mover of the Amendment, but again I must ask the sympathy of the Committee for the position of the draftsman. The Committee will appreciate there are two Ministers concerned here. There is the Minister of Town and Country Planning, and the Minister who is, if I may use ordinary language, the godfather of the statutory undertakers, as the Minister of Health is for the water undertakers, the Ministry of Fuel and Power for gas and the Ministry of Transport for railways and so on. Therefore, while we have to distinguish as a matter of drafting between these two Ministers it seems to us that the "appropriate Department," that being defined as my hon. Friend has pointed out to the Committee, in the Sub-section on page 17, would clarify it and make it easier to read. There is the other point that at the moment, as my hon. Friend pointed out, all the statutory undertakers are the godchildren of Ministers who happen to be called Ministers. At earlier stages in the constitutional history of this country they were under the Board of Trade and various other entities—not to use the word my hon. Friend does not like—and it is possible they might revert again. I would ask him to leave it in this way: I assure him and the Committee that there is no sinister purpose behind the use of the word "Department." It is not a new attempt at bureaucracy or anything of that kind, but simply a matter of getting the best sounding and most easily understood word. I think if, my hon. Friend having heard my explanation and our difficulty, would allow us to reconsider it, the Minister and I will consider his suggestion, and will also consider whether we can find some word which would not offend him and serve the purpose. If we can we will. We realise the difficulty and wish to meet it.

7.15 p.m.

Sir J. Mellor: Could not the draftsman avail himself of the principle of collective Ministerial responsibility, and simply use the expression "any Minister" or "other Minister" or "a Minister"? To-day the Government resisted an Amendment I moved requiring consulta-

tions with the Minister of Agriculture on the ground of the doctrine of collective Ministerial responsibility, which they said would be infringed by my Amendment. Surely here, where it is suggested that the draftsman might be involved in confusion, this could be done?

The Solicitor-General: If the Committee will allow me to answer my hon. Friend, I would say that I know that the point has been worrying him on another discussion. The case he referred to was that of a Ministerial certificate. Where a clearly defined statutory duty like giving a certificate or making an Order is placed on a Minister, then it is not only constitutionally correct, but essential for its working to name the Minister on whom the statutory duty is laid. When it is the mere design as to the general function of Government such as consultations between His Majesty's Ministers or their Departments it comes under the rule that the Government speak as one. Where a clearly defined statutory duty is laid it has to be laid on one or two Ministers.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I do not follow the drafting difficulty, but in view of what the Solicitor-General has said, and in the hope that something will be done in regard to this derogatory description of Ministers in the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 16, line 25, after "applies," insert: "then, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (5) of this Section."—[The Solicitor-General.]

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 17, line 4, at end, insert:
(5) Where an order in relation to which Sub-section (3) of this Section would apart from this Sub-section have effect as respects any land is an order under Sub-section (1) of Section two or under Section four of this Act authorising the compulsory purchase of that land as being land as to which an order under Section one of this Act is in force, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say—

(a) Sub-section (3) of this Section shall not have effect as respects the land in question unless within the time allowed for making objections to the application for the relevant order under Section one of this Act the person carrying on a statutory undertaking has made to the appropriate department in the prescribed manner a representation that the land in question is land to which this Section applies:


(b) where such a representation is so made as respects any land the Minister and the appropriate Department may make under this Sub-section an order which shall be provisional only and shall be of no effect until confirmed by Parliament, declaring that it is expedient that that land should be subject to compulsory purchase, and if such an order has taken effect as respects the land in question. Sub-section (3) of this Section shall not have effect as respects it."

The purpose of this Amendment is to define when a statutory undertaker qualifies for his special treatment, that is, at the stage that he must make his representations to his godparent Minister within the period, which is limited for objections to Clause 1 order. Having done that, if he makes objection he will be excluded from the order, and the special treatment will be accorded to him. The reason is that hitherto the only plan, when the property of statutory undertakers could be compulsorily acquired, was for certain road-widening purposes. Now it is essential they should be acquired for the planning purposes of this Bill. It is, at the same time, necessary to give them protection because they are creatures of statutory powers, acting under the statutory powers they have obtained. Therefore, if they make objection within the time I have described, special treatment will apply. If they do not make an objection, they do not get the special treatment. That is the effect of this rather lengthy Amendment.

Earl Winterton: I would like to call attention to the extraordinary wording of the first part of this Amendment:
(5) Where an order in relation to which Subsection (3) of this Section would apart from this Subsection have effect as respects any land is an order under Subsection (1) of section two or under section four of this Act authorising the compulsory purchase. …
We are always hearing in the courts, I am sorry to say, of the extraordinarily ungrammatical way in which we do business. It is not unreasonable to expect the draftsman—I have had some experience of the draftsman, and he is a very able person—to put this into a simpler form. It reduces Statutes and the work of this Committee to a farce when words of that nature are put in. Surely it is possible to find simpler language.

The Solicitor-General: In answer to my Noble Friend's remarks, which express a view with which we are all concerned, I might say that I should have the

greatest pleasure in looking into the point. My Noble Friend will appreciate that it is difficult to combine all the necessary considerations, and I am sure that, out of his fund of sympathy, he will sympathise with the difficulties of the draftsmen therein. But that is only another reason why we should have another look at it and do our best to carry out his desire.

Mr. Pritt: I would like to say a word or two about the difficulties of draftsmen and dràfting. I sympathise with the laymen who say that it takes about 10 minutes to see what such a provision means. But what the draftsman has to do is to put, so far as he can—human nature being always imperfect—such a provision into words which, after the 10 minutes' study, will have only one meaning. I have many a time taken something like this and tried to put it into language that would be more intelligible to laymen. It has usually come out three times as long. That does not matter much, but it has also come out with greater ambiguity. I do not know any of the Parliamentary draftsmen—I am not sticking up for my cousin, or anything of that sort—but this is one of the difficulties of our language. Such phrasing as this is the only clear and definite language that can be used when dealing with complicated things. I am sure that the Solicitor-General will try to do better, and I am sure that he will fail.

Earl Winterton: That may be true, but the fact is that every unfortunate subject of the Crown who is affected has to go to his lawyers, because he cannot understand it. It may mean something to the lawyers, but it does not to anybody else. It is becoming a scandal the way people have constantly to take legal advice because Parliament is incapable of expressing itself in what, after all, is one of the simplest languages in the world.
Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 17, line 6, after "effect," to insert:
as respects the interest of the person by whom the undertaking in question is being carried on.
This Amendment and the next are drafting Amendments introducing the compensation provisions.
Amendment agreed to.


Further Amendment made: In page 17, line 7, leave out from "purchase" to end of Sub-section; and insert:
under this Part of this Act of land to which this section applies."—[The Solicitor-General.]

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 17, line 8, at the end, to insert:
including compensation to be estimated in connection with the purchase for damage sustained by reason of the severing of land the subject thereof from other land held therewith or otherwise injuriously affecting such other land, and compensation to be so estimated for disturbance or any other matter not directly based on the value of land.
I said that the other two Amendments introduced the compensation provisions. This Amendment makes clear that the compensation provisions include the usual matters of severance, injurious affection, and disturbance.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 12.—(Restriction on, purchase of commons and open spaces.)

Mr. Tinker: On a point of Order. Could I ask how far the Government intend to go to-night?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I would like to get this Clause, if possible—no more.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 18, line 7, to leave out paragraph (b).
It will be seen that, under this Clause, power is given to purchase commons, open spaces, and fuel or field allotments. But that power is provisional, and the Minister has to be satisfied, under paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1), that other land has been, or will be, given in exchange for such land. The people who are deprived of their allotments will get other land in exchange. No one will quarrel with that. But, under paragraph (b), the Minister has power to deprive these allotment holders of the right to get any other land in exchange, for there it is said:
that the giving in exchange of other land is unnecessary whether in the interests of the persons, if any, entitled to rights of common or other rights or in the interests of the public,
and certifies accordingly.
In some parts of the country these small allotments and these rights of common are

very highly valued indeed; and it seems to me quite wrong that it should be left to the arbitrary decision of the Minister whether these people should be deprived of their rights without getting equivalent rights in return. One does not know what test the Minister will apply in deciding whether it is necessary or not to give other land in exchange. I think that this Bill would be much better if that paragraph were left out; and in cases Where commons, open spaces and fuel or field allotments are taken there should be a right to get alternative land in place of the land of which the person is deprived.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: I desire to support in every way this Amendment, which I think is most excellent and will greatly improve the Bill. It is not only that the rights of people who have allotments are important things to protect. It is also because they belong to a class of people who are humble and who find it difficult to draw their case to the attention of the Minister. It is important for this Committee, in view of these considerations, to support this Amendment.

Earl Winterton: I would like to ask the Minister one or two questions. There is a very important organisation in this country, containing hundreds of thousands of members, called, I think, the National Allotment Holders' Association. I would like to ask whether he has consulted them. They represent, as my hon. and learned Friend has mentioned, in the main very humble people, allotment holders cultivating a few acres of land. I think they would be described as a democratic organisation composed of wage-earners. Have the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society been consulted, and have other organisations interested in the preservation of rural land and rural amenities been consulted?
I would call the attention of the Committee to the fact, which I think has a bearing on this Sub-section of the Clause, that there have been some very bad cases in the past of urban authorities taking away from allotment holders the right to cultivate allotments. Being the owners of the land, they have, in some cases, acted in a most arbitrary manner, causing in some localities a great deal of ill-


feeling. There have been extremely bad cases of local authorities taking away common rights, and turning them into recreation grounds, and prohibiting people who had sheep, goats or cows pastured on the common, from continuing to do so. This is a matter which has created in the past more bitter local feeling than all the bigger questions there are, and I ask whether the Minister did consult these various authorities before he put this proposal in the Bill, because, if not, I think there will be very considerable opposition.
It is interesting to note, as I have said once before, how urbanised we are becoming here. I am convinced that if a former House of Commons had been asked to give power to abolish any such rights, there would have been the most tremendous political controversy and by-elections would have been fought upon it. But this Clause is considered at a late hour, when we are about to adjourn, and, had it not been for the Amendment, it might have escaped attention altogether. I suggest that it is a very important matter indeed.

Mr. Silkin: From the speeches we have heard, one might assume that the purpose of this Clause was to take away open spaces and common land from the public. In fact, the purpose of the Clause is quite the reverse. In the normal way it would have been the duty of the authority to provide an equal amount of space to that which is taken away, but there are, conceivably, places where that is not necessary. I can imagine a case straight away where it might not be necessary to substitute another equal amount as an open space. In such a case the Minister may certify accordingly, but, before this becomes operative, anyone who has any objections whatever, and any person interested, including all the organisations referred to by the Noble Lord, can make representations and the Minister is bound to consider them. If necessary—and I am sure it would be necessary in the case of any of the organisations referred to—there would have to be a public inquiry. I cannot imagine for one moment that, after the public inquiry, the Minister would get away with filching land from allotments. The whole thing would be publicly ventilated. I feel that this amount of latitude, with the safeguards in the Clause, ought to be permitted.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Does my hon. Friend know of any case where a public inquiry has resulted in the order which it was proposed to make not being made?

Mr. Silkin: Yes, I do, and if my hon. Friend will ask me again in 24 hours' time, I will give him the details. It is true there are relatively few, but the fact remains, and I cannot imagine that the vigilance of this Committee and of the whole country on a matter of this sort would allow it to be possible for the Minister to act arbitrarily, or take away an open space without giving a proper substitute. I think that some method, in extreme cases, ought to be found.

Mr. H. Strauss: I should like to assure the Committee, as one who cares a great deal about open spaces, that the vigilance of every section of the Committee in defence of this cause is something which we should welcome, and we do. I can reassure hon. Gentlemen on the point they raised, that this was in effect some novelty that could not be done under existing legislation. That is not so. There is a precisely similar provision, and there has been since 1932, which is contained in paragraph 4 (1, b) of Part 11 of the Third Schedule of the 1932 Statute. The purpose in this provision is really that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin). It is to avoid the prevention of something that would not injure anybody. It is a de minimis provision. If I may give an example, it may arise in town areas where an improvement has been very necessary which involves a very slight encroachment on a common or an open space, perhaps the very smallest road widening or improvement or something of that kind, and it is very convenient that that should be dealt with on the lines the hon. Member for Peckham has just suggested. If the Minister certified an improper case or disregarded legitimate objections the vigilance of this House would soon call that Minister to task. There is nothing sinister whatever intended under the Clause. There has been a precisely similar provision, which has not been abused, in the law since 1932, and I think the safeguard is sufficient. I ought to add one word about allotments. The allotments in this Clause are not allotments quite in the sense that we generally speak of allotments. They are defined at the end of the Clause with which we are dealing. I hope


that with the explanation I have given my hon. Friends may think fit to withdraw their Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: The answer which the Parliamentary Secretary has given makes it even more disturbing because he suggests that the only remedy open to allotment holders is representation in this House. He knows, as well as I do, that the unfortunate small man holding an allotment is not going to get much chance to put his case forward in this House. I particularly wish to support the Amendment. Although this is not the time to go into the question of common rights, I am particularly interested in the question of allotment holders. In time of war we call upon them and seek their support and ask them to do everything they can to help the war, and when it comes to post-war legislation it looks as if we are throwing them over and purporting by this Sub-section to take away the right to work their allotments in their own way. I hope that the provision will not stand in the Bill and that the rights of allotment holders will be protected.

Captain Duncan: I should have thought that this Sub-section was unnecessary for the working of the Bill and I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would reconsider the matter. The procedure for dealing with open spaces and garden allotments is similar under the main part of the Clause and it seems unnecessary to have paragraph (b). When there is an infringement of an open space or a common, let there be a Provisional Order and let it come before Parliament in every case so that Parliament will know, and if there are no objections it will go through without any trouble. Time after time we are seeing in this Bill the rights of the individual citizen and small man, lost in the interests of ease of administration, and that is a thing which I want to avoid as much as I can because it is up to the administration to improve itself and not filch away the rights of the small man.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I have listened with the greatest possible attention to everything that the Parliamentary Secretary has said. It seemed to me that his arguments were not very strong. The first argument seemed to be that because

this power had been slipped in in another Bill which had been passed through without any argument we should repeat the process this time and let it pass at this late hour of the night without pursuing the matter any further. I am not in the least convinced that this Sub-section is necessary. I think that when it comes to depriving any individual of his rights in regard to common or allotment then it ought to be by Provisional Order or, if the Minister can so deprive them, that he gives them other rights in exchange. I have listened with great attention to what the Parliamentary Secretary has said and I cannot accept his invitation to withdraw.

Mr. Douglas: I should very much like to congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Noble Lord upon their zeal in favour of the owners of common rights in land. There are not a great many of them left nowadays, unfortunately, and it is of course under provisions of this kind that millions and millions of acres were enclosed without any compensation whatever to those who had enjoyed the use of them and who were deprived of their livelihood. It is delightful to see, even at this last minute of this last hour, this sincere repentance.

7.45 P.m.

Earl Winterton: I should like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman, who is a most eloquent speaker and most popular in the House, on his heavy sarcasm, but I wish to address a word to the Minister of a more serious nature than that of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken.

Mr. Kirkwood: What the hon. Member said was true.

Earl Winterton: I can tell the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) that I am quite as capable of being rude as he is. I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to put his supporters in a very difficult position. We feel very strongly on this matter, and he has not answered the question I put to him. It was a perfectly proper and simple one: whether he had consulted the National Association of Allotment Holders. They have been in communication with hon. Members of this House on a great many aspects of land legislation at the present time, and he should have consulted them. He has not really answered the point that this Sub-section appears to be quite un-


necessary. I would make a suggestion to him to consider the matter before Report, to have, if necessary, discussion with the National Association of Allotment Holders and the other bodies affected, and if, as a result of that discussion and further consideration, he is prepared to withdraw the Sub-section, he can do it on Report.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: I want to add my appeal as well to the Minister to regard this matter seriously. There is a large body of this Committee who feel strongly. It is not going to make any substantial difference to the Bill if he gives way, and I should like him to show willingness on the part of the Government to meet those of us who feel very strongly on this matter.

Mr. H. Strauss: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe) I am sure unintentionally, rather misrepresented what I said. I certainly did not say that an unfortunate allotment holder would have no chance whatever except in this House. If he looks at Sub-section (2) very specific rights are given there to make objection.
What I did say was that if the Minister did ride rough-shod over such people the House would correct him. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend did not wish to misrepresent me. I appreciate the Noble Lord's zeal, and I will look into the matter to see how it can be improved from the point of view which he put forward. I think some such words as these in the Sub-section are wanted. Let the Noble Lord consider this: Suppose you are taking a yard or so of a road which goes across a common. Supposing you deny this right, would one yard, given somewhere else, be of the slightest use to the public? The idea behind this Subsection is to prevent the machinery being held up where there is no reason for it to be held up. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) talked about something having slipped into the 1932 Act. I do not know what he means. One might ask him whether he can give any example, from the period which has elapsed since then, where the particular power of which he is now complaining has ever been abused or has brought about any consequence to which he objects. However, I am most willing to give the Noble Lord a promise to look into the matter again and see if there is

anything too wide in the Clause as drafted, but I have given reasons why I think something on the lines of the Sub-section is needed.

Mr. Manning;ham-Buller: In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has now said, and believing that he will find some form of words which will give the Ministry slight and limited power to take a few yards away from the corner of a common, and no more, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Does the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill) wish to move his Amendment to this Clause?

Mr. Erskine-Hill: No.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move,
"That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I would like to express my thanks, and those of my colleagues on the Treasury Bench, for the progress which has been made by the Committee to-day in dealing with this most difficult Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — AIRCRAFTMAN, CAIRO (HOME POSTING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pym.]

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I wish to raise a matter which came up at Question Time as long ago as 5th July, a matter of some importance concerning the posting of an aircraftman called Abse to the United Kingdom from Cairo, and his concern with the Cairo Forces Parliament. The actual question was why was Aircraftman Abse posted immediately after he had taken office in the so-called Forces Parliament, kept under arrest for 14 days pending his departure, and why the protest of the officer, for whom he was doing very useful work, was ignored. The third point is now unimportant, and I will not say anything about the second point, whether he was kept under arrest


or not. I am convinced that he was. The right hon. Gentleman is probably convinced that he was not. But it is not the important matter, and I propose to confine myself to the question of his posting. The reason given by the right hon. Gentleman—I had to drag it out of him; it was not till the third supplementary question that he gave it—was in effect this: When the Army authorities decided to close the Forces Parliament, a public protest was organised against the decision. In that public protest Abse took a prominent part. The Air authorities considered whether disciplinary action was necessary, but came to the conclusion that he was guilty only of misplaced zeal and they refrained from disciplinary action but thought it necessary, nevertheless, to post him. A Liberal Minister could not possibly put forward a more illiberal suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is free from that criticism at any rate; no one would call him a Liberal. It is a most illiberal thing to say, "I cannot punish you because you have not done anything punishable, but I will banish you to the Persian Gulf." Ultimately it became London.
With regard to the actual reason advanced, I can establish that there is not a word of truth in it from beginning to end. As a matter of fact I put, very summarily, in a later supplementary, the facts as I understood them, and the right hon. Gentleman appeared to accept them. Let me deal with the specific points. It is suggested that the Army authorities had decided to close the Forces Parliament. The Secretary of State for War has always vehemently denied that he tried to close it. Then there is the suggestion that a public protest was organised. It was not a public protest, because the Army had taken the precaution to exclude all the Press beforehand. It is hardly right to say that it was organised, because we shall see how it came out that there was no opportunity for it to be organised. The phrase "a public protest was organised" suggests that some one called a protest meeting. What happened was that a few short speeches were made then and there. It is said that Abse took a prominent part. No one has suggested what part he took, and in fact he took no part whatever. I shall also

hope to show that the reason for his posting was probably not that at all.
On this point the facts seem pretty clear. Let me recite the facts as I understand them. The Forces Parliament was organised with the Army authorities' complete good will. It was a very successful and useful thing. It was held in a pleasant place, called "Music for All," and it attracted masses of British and Dominion troops of both sexes and all Services. They had to pay 3 piastres—7½d.—to go in and they went in large numbers. On 2nd February it formed a party Government with full approval, official photographers, plenty of Army publicity. The great misfortune was that Labour had 119 Members, Common Wealth 55, Liberals 38 and Conservatives 17, so that if you throw the Liberals in with the Tories, it was progressive by 174 to 55, which is over three to one, but if you regard the Liberals, as they regard themselves, as progressive, there were 212 to 17.
That was the beginning and end of the trouble. Let us see how the Army dealt with it. On 1st March the Parliament held its first meeting in its new form. It had a King's Speech and it went off very well from beginning to end. Notwithstanding the presence in Cairo of several Army officers, who, no doubt as fighting men, are very fine but as politicians are the daddies of all Blimps, no complaint was made. The man whose case I am raising—not because he minds being posted to London but because this is a matter of public importance—was guilty of being Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was not the least like the one here. On 5th April there came the second meeting and all the trouble. There was to be a debate on the nationalisation of the banks, and from the formation of the parties one can guess what was likely to happen. It is said that meanwhile German propaganda had represented that at the meeting at which the King's Speech was discussed, about which Colonel Blimp had made no complaint and people more reasonable than he had made no complaint, the troops were mutinous because they had been discussing politics on the King's Speech. We have never been given any details of what the German propaganda said, and no one suggests that there was the slightest foundation for the German suggestion. Nobody has explained why we should take any notice


of it or why we should prefer to conciliate or appease Goebbels rather than let the men get on with their sensible political conversations.
On 5th April, when the second meeting was to be held, there arrived an Army commander and an Army educational officer. This Parliament was managed by a governing committee, but nobody had the decency or courtesy to communicate with it. Suddenly, at the beginning, when everybody was there except the Press—the war correspondents were there, but the Press had been removed—up gets the Army commander to read an Order to the effect that the name of the Forces' Parliament was to be changed, no civilians were to be present, no Press were to be present, which meant that there was not to be any report of the proceedings, and, much worse, the subjects in future, including the choice of subjects, were to be supervised by the Army education authorities and the meetings controlled by them. This is the way they treated grown men who had been fighting for their country and who, when less fighting came their way, were trying to understand politics and decide whether to vote against the right hon. and gallant Gentleman at the next election. The Army commander announced that these things were to happen. The reason he gave was German propaganda—a new thing to settle our politics for us—and a half suggestion that King's Regulation 541 made political meetings illegal, anyhow. It was a feeble suggestion, since the Army had encouraged these meetings. Abse has not been posted because Geobbels asked for him to be posted, or because of anything that happened in the King's Speech debate. He has been posted, according to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's answer, because he took part in an organised public protest.
We had better, therefore, see what happened, because this was the first time anybody suggested there was any protest. The leaders of the four parties must have had some hint of the order and a few minutes to discuss it, and that is the nearest approach to any organisation of a protest. But this is what happened. The Prime Minister was a corporal in the Army Pay Corps and an ex-councillor for Stepney. As Labour was in office he was a member of the Labour Party. That is a terrible thing. I can speak

with perfect impartiality because I am not one, yet it seems very naturally a very terrible thing. He moved a Vote of Protest and he took three whole minutes. I wish I could be as brief as he was. He took the line that this was an interference with the rights of civilians in uniform. The other speakers also spoke for approximately three minutes each. The leader of Commonwealth made a three-minute speech. The Liberal leader was a Flight Officer in the R.A.F. and he took that much of a prominent part in this protest; but he was not posted. The Conservative was a corporal in the R.A.F. and in his three-minute speech he was a little violent. He was more violent than the other three. I do not know whether he was posted or not.
No complaint has ever been made out in Cairo of the terms or of the manner of the protest made by these four gentlemen. Abse remained perfectly silent because the protests were rightly being made by the party leaders only; Abse was only the Chancellor of the Exchequer and he said nothing; but he has been posted. There was a vote of 600 to 1 or somewhere between 560 and 600 to 1 which meant that the Government's stooges present were one only. The meeting went on, and no complaints were made by any authority that there was anything wrong at all, and still less that Abse was doing wrong, but he was posted. The meeting was no longer public, for the war correspondents and other civilians were then turned out. The Cairo authorities—and it is not the fault of the R.A.F.—then proceeded to show Goebbels that there must be something in it by stopping all communications to London. It is an odd thing that within five days of the meeting two letters were sent to London which arrived by the oversight of the censor, in which it was stated that arrangements were being made to get rid of the leaders who made the protest by posting them. The actual postings, however, were not of the leaders of the protest. The only postings were four in number. There was a committee of nine, and four of these were posted. All except Abse were sent to really unpleasant places; people have to be sent there, of course, but it is not right to send them there because they had or had not made a three-minute speech or because they were members of the committee of this very valuable organisation. It happened


that one of those posted was one of the speakers as well as being a member of the committee; that was the Army Pay Corps corporal. So far as I know, the three R.A.F. men who were posted were none of those who had taken part in the protest, but they were all members of the committee. The Secretary of State for War pretended on 16th May that the posting of Lance-Corporal Solomons was a pure coincidence—or an impure coincidence—made not because he had had anything to do with the matter but in pursuance of a request for posting which he had made himself; but that is obviously incorrect.
Various reasons have been advanced by the Government at times for these postings. The reason given for posting Abse is that he took a prominent part in the protest. It is no use saying that German propaganda had anything to do with the posting of Abse, because that has never been suggested. Other reasons, given vaguely, for closing down, or half closing down, the Forces Parliament, were German propaganda, but that really does not come in here. There was a shadow of a suggestion that it was all political and therefore a breach of King's Regulations. And there was a suggestion from the Secretary of State for War somewhat later, on the 25th July, that the fact that after the Parliament had been put on the chain and made to sit in another less comfortable and less interesting place only about three people attended, showed that the whole thing was a piece of political exhibitionism but as any piece of politics breaks his heart one can forgive him his little outburst. One reason why few people attended the later meetings was that if you got posted to the Persian Gulf for protesting or not protesting against a highhanded piece of stupidity, it was better to leave the thing alone.
The only other thing I need say is this: this is a great citizen Army, and a jolly good citizen Army, and I mean by that all the Forces. It has to come back and live in this country, to houses if there are any, to Government of some kind. It is very good that even in Cairo, let alone other places, sensible, intelligent people in the Education Department give them a chance to think; but when the day comes when there is a Labour majority in the Middle East Parliament some silly Brigadier tries to close it down, and the

moment someone protests, anyone with any brains who had any part in it is sent off to the Persian Gulf or the South Pole or somewhere else. It is a major scandal and I hope that anyone who has had anything to do with it will find all the soldiers' votes, and the votes of the families of all the soldiers, against him at the next election. But that is not good enough. These soldiers are grown up men, as good men as on that Front Bench. They have fought for their country and have had the good fortune not to be killed. Other fine men are not there because they have been killed defending people who behave like this.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Loverseed: I intervene briefly because I have from the start taken a great interest in this particular Parliament in the Middle East. I am rather sorry that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air has been made the target of the attack to-night because I think it should have been directed to the War Office, who have behaved in the most blimpish manner over the whole business. The Royal Air Force has lived up to its name as the most progressive Service in allowing living discussion in the Service. There is just one question I would like to ask. It is, At what date was it decided by the Air Ministry that Abse should be posted? I ask this for a particular reason. I asked the Secretary of State for War some time ago why certain people were posted, in view of the fact that some time before the Parliament was closed I received a letter, which was heavily censored, from the Middle East, censored with ink lines and typewritten crosses but which an efficient secretary managed to read. It stated that it was at that time known, or was common knowledge throughout the Middle East, that Abse and another person were to be posted. I received that letter before Abse was, in fact, posted, and I would be interested to hear at what date it was proposed to post him. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) referred to the majority in the Parliament who protested against the decision to close it. The majority was 600 to 1, I understand, and the one dissenter was the blimp to whom my hon. Friend referred, and who I think should be known by name as Brigadier Chrystall.

8.10 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): The hon and learned Gentleman gave notice that he wished to raise on the Motion for the Adjournment the case of the posting of Aircraftman Abse. He did not give notice that he intended to deal in the main with the merits or demerits of the Forces Parliament. He argued in favour of the Forces Parliament. He justified its existence in glowing phrases. I come here to-night not to debate the Forces Parliament, but to do my duty and endeavour to answer the particular question which the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised as to the reasons for the posting of Aircraftman Abse, My hon. and learned Friend stated that Aircraftman Abse was posted because he took part in an organised public protest. Aircraftman Abse was not posted for that reason. He was posted at the discretion of the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, a discretion which may be exercised by all Commanders in the field as regards the posting of their personnel. Here let us not forget that we in Westminster are in a somewhat different position, geographically and from the point of view of responsibility, from those who administer territories open to attack in time of war. We have a responsibility different from that of those responsible in the theatres of war.

Mr. Pritt: If it is said that he was not posted for that reason, for what was he posted? Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman going back on what his Chief said? He said:
When the Army authorities decided to close the Forces Parliament … the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief considered whether disciplinary action was called for.

Captain Balfour: My hon. and learned Friend should read the complete answer. My right hon. Friend gave this reply:
The Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief has full discretion to post an airman at any time if he considers such a posting to be in the interests of the Service, and Aircraftman Abse was posted by the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Middle East in the exercise of this discretion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1944; Vol. 401, C. 1136–7.]
[Interruption.] Time is limited. I have listened patiently, and I shall endeavour to give such reply as I can; I would ask my hon. and learned Friend, in the few minutes which remain, to extend to me the courtesy that I gave to him. The

Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief exercised his discretion because, in his view, Aircraftman Abse's enthusiasms were such as to render him unsuitable for service in that Command. I would submit to the House that the first duty of a serving airman or soldier is to his Service. Everyone wants to see outside interests encouraged and it is not the wish of one particular party to suppress political interests. I think all of us wish to see political study, or any other form of interest that a man likes, permitted to him, and opportunities afforded him for the exercise of particular bents and tastes. But if a man is over-enthusiastic and devotes too much of his time and attention to his particular enthusiasm and moreover diverts others in the same direction, whether it be music, sport, the study of political philosophy, or political economy, there comes a point when the commanding officer decides that in the general interest the man should no longer serve in his Command.

Mr. Pritt: On a point of Order. Is it in Order, when a Minister has first said that the posting was in accordance with the exercise of the commanding officer's discretion and then said it was exercised because the man took a prominent part in a public protest, for the Minister or his colleague to come to the House and proceed to give a whole lot of other reasons suggesting that the man is a bad soldier, neglecting his work and letting his enthusiasms run away with him, which the right hon. Gentleman had every opportunity to say but did not say?

Captain Balfour: My hon. and learned Friend is very clever. When he has made his case and I wish to make my case, he interrupts.

Mr. Pritt: On a point of Order—

Mr. Speaker: The Minister is entitled to make his reply as he chooses. I cannot control how a Minister answers in Debate.

Mr. Foster: Should he not keep his temper?

Captain Balfour: The man was posted, not because he took a prominent part in the Forces Parliament—

Mr. Pritt: On a point of Order. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is now giving the lie direct to his own chief, who said that the man was posted


for a specific reason. The right hon. Gentleman now says he was not posted
for that reason.

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his chief.

Captain Balfour: I will read it again:
The Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief has full discretion to post an airman at any time if he considers such a posting to be in the interests of the Service, and Aircraftman Abse was posted by the A.O.C.-in-C., Middle East, in the exercise of this discretion.
That is why he was posted and the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief considered that this man's enthusiasms were so—

Mr. Pritt: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is saying that, he must really read on.

Mr. Speaker: I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has very little time.

Mr. Pritt: But if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman uses it in misrepresentation, he must expect interruptions.

Captain Balfour: The hon. and learned Gentleman does not like—

Mr. Pritt: It is deliberately dishonest and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows it.

Captain Balfour: Well, we will read on:
I am informed that he was not at any time placed under open arrest. This airman had for three weeks prior to his posting been taking an educational class for his unit, and his posting was no doubt a matter of regret to the Education Officer whom he was assisting. It was not, however, considered that this provided a good reason for varying the decision.

Mr. Pritt: I asked the Minister to give the reason and he gave the reason.

Captain Balfour: I will read it:
When the Army authorities decided to close the Forces Parliament. … a public protest was organised against the decision, in which this airman figured prominently. The Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief considered whether disciplinary action was called for. He decided, rightly in my opinion, to take the view that this was really a case of misplaced zeal and not to take disciplinary action. He did, however, think it was in the interests of the Service that this man should be posted away from the command.
He did not consider that it required any disciplinary action, but he did consider that this man's whole attitude to the Service was such that a satisfactory airman, an excellent airman—and may I here interpose and say that Abse is doing excellent work at his present station and that there has been no complaint at all—that when a man had developed decided enthusiasms which had an influence upon his own Service life and that of others, the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief has a clear right to say "I would prefer to have a man who will concentrate more on his Service duties." [Interruption.] The Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief accordingly exercised his discretion and that is the reason why the airman was posted

It being half-an-hour after the conclusion of Business exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, as modified for this Session by the Order of the House of 25th November.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes after Eight o'Clock.